DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s amendment filed 1/8/2026 has been fully considered.
Claims 1 and 4-16 have been examined. Claims 2-3 have been canceled.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Regarding the argument against the obviousness-type double patenting rejection, Examiner respectfully points out that Patent No. 12,067,088 also claims the added limitation of combining the first and second information in claim 9.
Double Patenting
Claims 1 and 4-16 are provisionally rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims of Patent No. 12067088. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because
“A method for an information processing apparatus in which a hybrid application program having a function related to a predetermined service operates, the hybrid application program having both a function of a native application program and a function of a web application program in the function related to the predetermined service, the method comprising: accepting a predetermined user operation in the hybrid application program; acquiring first information related to the function of the web application program in the function related to the predetermined service from a server, and acquiring second information related to the function of the native application program in the function related to the predetermined service and saved in advance in the hybrid application program, the first information being license information about the web application program, the second information being license information about the native application program; combining the first information and the second information; and displaying the combined first information and second information in one page,wherein the license information about the web application program is information related to open source software (OSS) used in the web application program, and the license information about the native application program is information related to OSS used in the native application program” (claim 1, instant application) is analogous to
“A method for an information processing apparatus in which a hybrid application program having a function related to a predetermined service operates, the hybrid application program having both a function of a native application program and a function of a web application program in the function related to the predetermined service, the method comprising: accepting a predetermined user operation in the hybrid application program; acquiring first information related to the function of the web application program in the function related to the predetermined service from a server, and acquiring second information related to the function of the native application program in the function related to the predetermined service and saved in advance in the hybrid application program, the first information being license information about the web application program, the second information being license information about the native application program; and displaying the first information and the second information, wherein the license information about the web application program is a license term of open source software (OSS) used in the web application program, and the license information about the native application program is a license term of OSS used in the native application program” (claim 1, patent 12067088).
This is a provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims of the instant application have not in fact been patented.
The claims of the conflicting patents and/or applications contain every element of claims 1 and 4-16 of the instant application and thus anticipate the claims of the instant application. Claims 1 and 4-16 of the instant application therefore are not patently distinct from the copending application claims and as such are unpatentable for obvious-type double patenting. A later patent/application claim is not patentably distinct from an earlier claim if the later claim is anticipated by the earlier claim.
“A later patent claim is not patentably distinct from an earlier patent claim if the later claim is obvious over, or anticipated by, the earlier claim. In re Longi, 759 F.2d at 896, 225 USPQ at 651 (affirming a holding of obviousness-type double patenting because the claims at issue were obvious over claims in four prior art patents); In re Berg, 140 F.3d at 1437, 46 USPQ2d at 1233 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (affirming a holding of obviousness-type double patenting where a patent application claim to a genus is anticipated by a patent claim to a species with that genus). “ELI LILLY AND COMPANY v BARR LABORATORIES, INC., United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, ON PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC (DECIDED: May 30, 2001).
“Claim 12 and Claim 13 are generic to the species of invention covered by claim 3 of the patent. Thus, the generic invention is “anticipated” by the species of the patented invention. Cf., Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (holding that an earlier species disclosure in the prior art defeats any generic claim) 4. This court’s predecessor has held that, without a terminal disclaimer, the species claims preclude issuance of the generic claim. In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 944, 214 USPQ 761, 767 (CCPA 1982); Schneller, 397 F.2d at 354. Accordingly, absent a terminal disclaimer, claims 12 and 13 were properly rejected under the doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting.” (In re Goodman (CA FC) 29 USPQ2d 2010 (12/3/1993).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: the remaining references put forth on the PTO-892 form are directed to license compatibility and OSS software.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to David García Cervetti whose telephone number is (571)272-5861. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-5PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, HADI S ARMOUCHE can be reached at (571)270-3618. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/David Garcia Cervetti/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2409