DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Double Patenting
Nonstatutory Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrinegrounded 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 obviousness-type 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claim 21-40 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3, 7-11, 14-16 of U.S. Patent No. 11,620,093. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because.
Claims 21-24 have a broad scope, which fully encompasses and reads on claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,620,093 that is defined in a narrower and more specific invention. Therefore claims 21-24 are rejected under Non-Statutory Obviousness-Type Double Patenting: Anticipation Analysis.
With respect to claim 25, claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 11,620,093 teaches wherein the first font element comprises information about a font typeface, spacing, orientation, bitmap, height, pitch, or weight of the graphical character.
With respect to claim 26, claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 11,620,093 teaches wherein the volatile determinant comprises information about a font typeface, spacing, orientation, bitmap, height, pitch, or weight of the graphical character, wherein the information is determined based on information associated to the identifier.
With respect to claim 27, claim 7 of U.S. Patent No. 11,620,093 teaches wherein the retrieving comprises retrieving an authentication key from the memory of the peripheral device.
Claims 28-30 and 34 has a broad scope, which fully encompasses and reads on claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,620,093 that is defined in a narrower and more specific invention. Therefore claims 28-30 and 34 are rejected under Non-Statutory Obviousness-Type Double Patenting: Anticipation Analysis.
With respect to claim 32, claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. 11,620,093 teaches wherein the first font element comprises information about a font typeface, spacing, orientation, bitmap, height, pitch, or weight of the graphical character.
With respect to claim 33, claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 11,620,093 teaches wherein the volatile determinant comprises information about a font typeface, spacing, orientation, bitmap, height, pitch, or weight of the graphical character, wherein the information is determined based on information associated to the identifier.
With respect to claim 33, claim 14 of U.S. Patent No. 11,620,093 teaches wherein the retrieving comprises retrieving an authentication key from the memory of the peripheral device.
Claims 35-38 has a broad scope, which fully encompasses and reads on claim 15 of U.S. Patent No. 11,620,093 that is defined in a narrower and more specific invention. Therefore claims 35-38 are rejected under Non-Statutory Obviousness-Type Double Patenting: Anticipation Analysis.
With respect to claim 39, claim 16 of U.S. Patent No. 11,620,093 teaches wherein the first font element comprises information about a font typeface, spacing, orientation, bitmap, height, pitch, or weight of the graphical character.
With respect to claim 40, claim 16 of U.S. Patent No. 11,620,093 teaches wherein the volatile determinant comprises information about a font typeface, spacing, orientation, bitmap, height, pitch, or weight of the graphical character, wherein the information is determined based on information associated to the identifier.
Claim 21-40 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,056,404. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because.
The limitations of the instant of claim 21 is substantially identically to the limitations in claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,056,404. Therefore claim 21 is rejected under Non-Statutory Obviousness-Type Double Patenting: Anticipation Analysis.
The limitations of the instant of claim 22 is substantially identically to the limitations in claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 12,056,404. Therefore claim 22 is rejected under Non-Statutory Obviousness-Type Double Patenting: Anticipation Analysis.
The limitations of the instant of claim 23 is substantially identically to the limitations in claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 12,056,404. Therefore claim 23 is rejected under Non-Statutory Obviousness-Type Double Patenting: Anticipation Analysis.
With respect to claim 24, claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 12,056,404 teaches performing, by the controller, an authentication protocol with the external device.
With respect to claim 25, claim 6 of U.S. Patent No. 12,056,404 teaches, wherein the first font element includes information about a font typeface, spacing, orientation, bitmap, height, pitch, or weight of the graphical character.
With respect to claim 26, claim 7 of U.S. Patent No. 12,056,404 teaches wherein the volatile determinant comprises information about a font typeface, spacing, orientation, bitmap, height, pitch, or weight of the graphical character, wherein the information is determined based on information associated to the identifier.
With respect to claim 27, is substantially identically to the limitations in claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 12,056,404. Therefore claim 27 is rejected under Non-Statutory Obviousness-Type Double Patenting: Anticipation Analysis.
With respect to claim 28, is substantially identically to the limitations in claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 12,056,404. Therefore claim 28 is rejected under Non-Statutory Obviousness-Type Double Patenting: Anticipation Analysis.
With respect to claim 29, is substantially identically to the limitations in claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. 12,056,404. Therefore claim 29 is rejected under Non-Statutory Obviousness-Type Double Patenting: Anticipation Analysis.
With respect to claim 30, is substantially identically to the limitations in claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,056,404. Therefore claim 29 is rejected under Non-Statutory Obviousness-Type Double Patenting: Anticipation Analysis.
With respect to claim 31, is substantially identically to the limitations in claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,056,404. Therefore claim 31 is rejected under Non-Statutory Obviousness-Type Double Patenting: Anticipation Analysis.
With respect to claim 32, claim 13 of U.S. Patent No. 11,620,093 teaches wherein the first font element comprises information about a font typeface, spacing, orientation, bitmap, height, pitch, or weight of the graphical character.
With respect to claim 33, claim 14 of U.S. Patent No. 11,620,093 teaches wherein the volatile determinant comprises information about a font typeface, spacing, orientation, bitmap, height, pitch, or weight of the graphical character, wherein the information is determined based on information associated to the identifier.
With respect to claim 34, is substantially identically to the limitations in claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 12,056,404. Therefore claim 34 is rejected under Non-Statutory Obviousness-Type Double Patenting: Anticipation Analysis.
With respect to claim 35, is substantially identically to the limitations in claim 15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,056,404. Therefore claim 35 is rejected under Non-Statutory Obviousness-Type Double Patenting: Anticipation Analysis.
With respect to claim 36, is substantially identically to the limitations in claim 16 of U.S. Patent No. 12,056,404. Therefore claim 36 is rejected under Non-Statutory Obviousness-Type Double Patenting: Anticipation Analysis.
With respect to claim 37, is substantially identically to the limitations in claim 17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,056,404. Therefore claim 37 is rejected under Non-Statutory Obviousness-Type Double Patenting: Anticipation Analysis.
With respect to claim 38, is substantially identically to the limitations in claim 18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,056,404. Therefore claim 38 is rejected under Non-Statutory Obviousness-Type Double Patenting: Anticipation Analysis.
With respect to claim 39, claim 19 of U.S. Patent No. 11,620,093 teaches wherein the first font element comprises information about a font typeface, spacing, orientation, bitmap, height, pitch, or weight of the graphical character.
With respect to claim 40, claim 20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,620,093 teaches wherein the volatile determinant comprises information about a font typeface, spacing, orientation, bitmap, height, pitch, or weight of the graphical character, wherein the information is determined based on information associated to the identifier.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUO LONG CHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-3759. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9am - 5pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tieu, Benny can be reached on (571) 272-7490. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HUO LONG CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2682
Prosecution Insights