CTNF 18/785,454 CTNF 76705 Detailed office Action Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. This office action is in response to the communication dated 7/26/24. Original claims 1-20 are pending. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 7-9, 16-17 and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and overcomes indicated DP rejection). Double Patenting 08-33 AIA The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg , 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman , 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi , 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum , 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel , 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington , 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA/25, or PTO/AIA/26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer. 08-34 AIA Claim s 1-20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. US 9967320 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because a comparison made between claims of the instant application and claims of Patent reveal the claims at issue define essentially the same invention in different language. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would conclude that the invention defined in claims at issue is an obvious variation of the invention defined in the claims of the Patent. Thus, examiner asserts the difference describe a subset of all possible conditions being monitored in the Patented claims. These differences are not sufficient to render the claims patentably distinct and therefore a terminal disclaimer is required . 08-34 AIA Claim s 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 1-21 of U.S. Patent No. US 10594777 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because a comparison made between claims of the instant application and claims of Patent reveal the claims at issue define essentially the same invention in different language. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would conclude that the invention defined in claims at issue is an obvious variation of the invention defined in the claims of the Patent. Thus, examiner asserts the difference describe a subset of all possible conditions being monitored in the Patented claims. These differences are not sufficient to render the claims patentably distinct and therefore a terminal disclaimer is required . 08-34 AIA Claim s 1-20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. US 11245746 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because a comparison made between claims of the instant application and claims of Patent reveal the claims at issue define essentially the same invention in different language. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would conclude that the invention defined in claims at issue is an obvious variation of the invention defined in the claims of the Patent. Thus, examiner asserts the difference describe a subset of all possible conditions being monitored in the Patented claims. These differences are not sufficient to render the claims patentably distinct and therefore a terminal disclaimer is required . 08-34 AIA Claim s 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 1-21 of U.S. Patent No. US 12052311 Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because a comparison made between claims of the instant application and claims of Patent reveal the claims at issue define essentially the same invention in different language. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would conclude that the invention defined in claims at issue is an obvious variation of the invention defined in the claims of the Patent. Thus, examiner asserts the difference describe a subset of all possible conditions being monitored in the Patented claims. These differences are not sufficient to render the claims patentably distinct and therefore a terminal disclaimer is required . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – 07-08-aia AIA (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1, 10-14, 15 , 18 and 19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GARDENFORS et al. U. S. Patent Application No. 2014/0078054[hereinafter GARDENFORS] . As per claims 1, 15 and 19 GARDENFORS discloses A method comprising: selecting, by a user device, a display device of a plurality of public display devices(see fig. 15)(see par. 0114-0115 where identifying content on the user device that is to be presented on the display device(see par. 0114, 004, to determine which respective content 130-2a, 130- 2b (and/or other respective content 130) is associated with and/or most closely associated with input received at display 105-3. This associated content 130 can be provided at display 105-2a, as depicted in FIG. 14). determining, based on a control setting of the user device, that the content is permitted to be presented on the display device(see par. 0128-0130); and transmitting, based on the determining that the content is permitted to be presented, the content to the display device(see par. 0128, where mobile device 1501 can also be provided in a suitable format at display 105-3, device 105-3 entering a slave mode. That is determining the device content and control a proximal display 105, such as display 105-2a, to provide associated respective content 130 according to the content from the mobile device 1501, which can be received via one or more of links 1640, 1940, where allowing content from mobile device 1501 to be displayed at the at least one display 105; and, control at least the portion of the plurality of public display systems 102 to provide the respective content by controlling the at least one display 105 to provide the respective content 130 according to the content from the mobile device 1501). as per claim 10, and 18 GARDENFORS discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising performing a device discovery function to identify the plurality of public display devices as being near the user device and permitting content to be presented; wherein the selecting of the display device includes analyzing the plurality of public display devices identified as being near the user device and permitting content to be presented(see par. 0128-0130). As per claim 11, GARDENFORS discloses the method of claim 10, wherein the analyzing of the plurality of public display devices includes determining how much privacy each of the plurality of public display devices is likely to allow for (see par. 0033, 0035). As per claim 12, GARDENFORS discloses The method of claim 10, wherein the analyzing of the plurality of public display devices includes determining how many other user devices are presenting content on each of the plurality of public display devices(see par. 0119, 0124). As per claim 13. GARDENFORS discloses the method of claim 10, wherein the analyzing of the plurality of public display devices includes determining, for each of the plurality of public display devices: a direction in which visual information presented by the public display device can be perceived, and whether the public display device is likely to be visible to the user when the visual information is presented(see par. 0110). As per claim 14, the method of claim 10, wherein the analyzing of the plurality of public display devices includes determining whether each of the plurality of public display devices is located along a route of travel of the user device(see par. 0123-0124) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 2-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GARDENFORS in view of Padi et al. U. S. Patent Application No. 2013/0143651 [hereinafter Harrison] As per 2, GARDENFORS discloses substantial features of the claimed invention as discussed above with respect to claims 1, 15 and 19, GARDENFORS does not explicitly disclose, wherein: the control setting indicates a threshold of privacy for a viewable area of the display device to display personal or sensitive information; and the determining that the content is permitted to be presented on the display device includes determining that the content includes personal or sensitive information and that the viewable area satisfies the threshold of privacy. Harrison discloses wherein: the control setting indicates a threshold of privacy for a viewable area of the display device to display personal or sensitive information(see par. 0039); and the determining that the content is permitted to be presented on the display device includes determining that the content includes personal or sensitive information and that the viewable area satisfies the threshold of privacy(see figs 3-4, par. 0039, .0066). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Harrison into the system of GARDENFORS to verify that the client device is present within a proximity zone and is allowed to control the public display, thus keeping the content appropriate for public viewing. As per claim 3, Harrison discloses the method of claim 1, wherein: the control setting indicates a threshold number of people detected in proximity to the display device(see par. 0033); and the determining that the content is permitted to be presented on the display device includes determining that fewer than the threshold number of people are in proximity to the display device(see par. 0033, 0035) As per claim 4, Harrison discloses the method of claim 1, wherein: the control setting indicates at least one of a threshold distance between the user device and the display device or a threshold size at which the content is to be presented (see par. 0033, 0035); and the determining that the content is permitted to be presented on the display device includes determining that at least one of the threshold distance and the threshold size are satisfied when the content is presented on the display device(see par. 0033, 0035) as per claim 5, Harrison discloses the method of claim 4, wherein the determining that the threshold distance is satisfied is based on a near-field communication (NFC) antenna of the user device being detected within an operational distance of an NFC antenna associated with the display device(see par. 0033) as per claim 6, Harrison disclosed the method of claim 1, wherein: the control setting is configured to allow user control over personal information that is to be presented on the display device(see par. 0036, displaying several visual content on the public display); and the method further comprises removing, based on the control setting and prior to transmitting the content, personal information from the content((see par. 0036, 0068, displaying several visual content on the public display based on control data). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABDULLAHI ELMI SALAD whose telephone number is (571)272-4009. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30AM-6:PM. 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, Faruk Hamza can be reached at 571-272-7969. 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. /ABDULLAHI E SALAD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2466 Application/Control Number: 18/785,454 Page 2 Art Unit: 2466 Application/Control Number: 18/785,454 Page 3 Art Unit: 2466 Application/Control Number: 18/785,454 Page 4 Art Unit: 2466 Application/Control Number: 18/785,454 Page 5 Art Unit: 2466 Application/Control Number: 18/785,454 Page 6 Art Unit: 2466 Application/Control Number: 18/785,454 Page 7 Art Unit: 2466 Application/Control Number: 18/785,454 Page 8 Art Unit: 2466 Application/Control Number: 18/785,454 Page 9 Art Unit: 2466 Application/Control Number: 18/785,454 Page 10 Art Unit: 2466 Application/Control Number: 18/785,454 Page 11 Art Unit: 2466 Application/Control Number: 18/785,454 Page 12 Art Unit: 2466
Prosecution Insights