DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is responsive to the Application filed on 8/26/2024. Claims 1-20 are pending in the case.
Double Patenting
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.
Claims 1, 11, and 16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 15, and 20 of U.S. Patent No. 12086371 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1, 11, and 16 under examination are anticipated, respectively, by claims 1, 15, and 20 the reference US Patent No. 12086371. Every limitation in the application under examination claims is recited in the conflicting reference patent claims, and the differences between the claims are underlined below.
Instant Application 18/815744
U.S. Patent No. 12086371 B2
1. A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions for a user interface view display process which, when executed by one or more processors of an electronic device, cause the one or more processors to:
receive, by a system process of the electronic device from an application running on the electronic device, state definitions for multiple states for a user interface view, and one or more transition definitions each defining a transition between two of the multiple states; and
responsive to a trigger to change the user interface view, effect, by the system process and according to the one or more transition definitions, the change from the one of the multiples states of the user interface view to the other of the multiple states of the user interface view.
20. A non-transitory, computer-readable medium storing instructions for a user interface view display process which, when executed by one or more processors of an electronic device, cause the one or more processors to:
receive, from an application running on the electronic device, state definitions for multiple states for a user interface view, and one or more transition definitions each defining a transition between two of the multiple states, wherein each of the multiple states includes at least one display element, a size for the at least one display element, and an identifier of the at least one display element;
identify a trigger for a change from one of the multiples states of the user interface view to another of the multiple states of the user interface view; and
responsive to the trigger, effect, and according to the one or more transition definitions, the change from the one of the multiples states of the user interface view to the other of the multiple states of the user interface view.
16. A method comprising:
receiving, by a system process of an electronic device from an application running on the electronic device, state definitions for multiple states for a user interface view, and one or more transition definitions each defining a transition between two of the multiple states; and
responsive to a trigger to change the user interface view, effect, by the system process and according to the one or more transition definitions, the change from the one of the multiples states of the user interface view to the other of the multiple states of the user interface view.
Claim 11 recites a device claim substantially the same as claim 1.
1. A method, comprising:
receiving, by a system process of an electronic device from an application running on the electronic device, state definitions for multiple states for a user interface view, and one or more transition definitions each defining a transition between two of the multiple states, wherein each of the multiple states includes at least one display element, a size for the at least one display element, and an identifier of the at least one display element;
identifying, by the system process, a trigger for a change from one of the multiple states of the user interface view to another of the multiple states of the user interface view; and
responsive to the trigger, effecting, by the system process and according to the one or more transition definitions, the change from the one of the multiples states of the user interface view to the other of the multiple states of the user interface view.
Claim 15 recites a method claim substantially the same as claim 1.
As shown in the mapping above, claims 1, 15, 20 of the reference patent includes all the limitations of claim 1 of the instant application, while also reciting further limitations.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-10,12-15 and 17-20 are allowed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Reddy et al. US 20200125371 teaches systems, and methods related to a plurality of displays coupled to one or more processors to display images, and a device display manager to identify a gesture made on a first display of the plurality of displays, and to cause a second display to sleep or to wake based upon the identified gesture and a current state of the second display, where the first and second displays are different displays.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAHELET SHIBEROU whose telephone number is (571)270-7493. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 AM-5:00 PM Eastern Time.
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, Kieu Vu can be reached at 571-272-4057. 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.
/MAHELET SHIBEROU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2171
Prosecution Insights