DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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 Arguments
2. Applicant’s arguments filed 2-26-26 have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection(s).
Double Patenting
3. A rejection based on double patenting of the "same invention" type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that "whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process ... may obtain a patent therefor ..." (Emphasis added). Thus, the term "same invention," in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957); and In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970).
4. 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 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).
5. Claims 1-3, 5-13, and 15-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 11,159,853. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-3, 5-13, and 15-20 of the application is merely broader in scope than patented claims 1-19 with the addition of displaying the notification again which is notoriously well known in the art as detailed below and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporating into the patented claims for the mere benefit of having more reminders to not miss an event and therefore an obvious variant.
Claims 1-3, 5-13, and 15-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-14 of U.S. Patent No. 11,711,585. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-3, 5-13, and 15-20 of the application is merely broader in scope than patented claims 1-14 with the addition of displaying the notification again which is notoriously well known in the art as detailed below and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporating into the patented claims for the mere benefit of having more reminders to not miss an event and therefore an obvious variant.
Claims 1-3, 5-13, and 15-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,108,116. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-3, 5-13, and 15-20 of the application is merely broader in scope than patented claims 1-14 with the addition of displaying the notification again which is notoriously well known in the art as detailed below and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporating into the patented claims for the mere benefit of having more reminders to not miss an event and therefore an obvious variant.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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 of this title, 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.
7. Claims 1-3, 5-6, 9, 11-13, 15-16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee, US 2010/0222079 in view of Cheng et al., US 2012/0245847.
Regarding claim 1, Lee teaches of a mobile terminal (See Fig.1, 100) comprising:
a position information acquisition circuitry configured to acquire position
information of a current position of the mobile terminal (See Fig.1, 115 and [0062] which discloses the position information module having a GPS for obtaining the position of the mobile terminal);
a wireless communication circuitry configured to communicate with a network (See [0052] and [0060]);
a memory configured to store position information of a place and a
date and time of a scheduled event (See Fig.7A and [0144]-[0146] which discloses scheduling/storing the position information of the scheduled place/destination that the user has scheduled as an event which includes time/date and location/place position in order to calculate the expected time to travel from the current location to the scheduled place location);
a display configured to display a notification (See [0151] outputting warning message); and
a controller configured to control the display to display the notification (See [0150]-[0153] and [0160]),
wherein the controller is configured to:
calculate a traveling time of a traveling route, from the current position of the mobile terminal to the place (See Fig.7A and [0144]-[0146]);
calculate a date and time of departure based on the date and time of the scheduled event and the calculated traveling time (See [0145]-[0155] calculating threshold time value in order to determine whether the destination will be reached at the departure time);
control the display to display a notification when a predetermined condition is met (See [0145]-[0155] outputting notification/warning upon reaching the preset time).
Lee is silent with respect to control the display to display the notification again when another predetermined condition is met within a predetermined time after previously displaying the notification.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Cheng teaches of control the display to display the notification again when another predetermined condition is met within a predetermined time after previously displaying the notification (See [0006]-[0007] and [0048]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Lee to have incorporated the teachings of Cheng for the mere benefit of sending extra reminders to better ensure reaching the destination in time for the event.
Regarding claim 2, the combination teaches the mobile terminal according to claim 1, wherein the predetermined condition is whether a current date and time is
reached at the date and time of departure or not (See Lee, [0145]-[0155]; Cheng, [0006]-[0007] and [0048]).
Regarding claim 3, the combination teaches the mobile terminal according to claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to calculate the traveling time when the
current position of the mobile terminal does not coincide with the position information
of the place (See Lee, [0145]-[0155]; Cheng, [0048]-[0049]).
Regarding claim 5, the combination teaches the mobile terminal according to claim 1, wherein, when the current position of the mobile terminal coincides with the
position information of the place, the controller is configured to display information
with reference to the date and time of the scheduled event (See Lee, [0145]-[0155]; Cheng, [0048]-[0049]).
Regarding claim 6, the combination teaches the mobile terminal according to claim 1, wherein the controller is a central processing unit (CPU) and is configured to
execute programs stored in the memory (See analysis of claim 1).
Regarding claim 9, the combination teaches the mobile terminal according to claim 1, wherein the position information acquisition circuitry is at least including a
GPS receiver (See Fig.1, 115 and [0062] which discloses the position information module having a GPS for obtaining the position of the mobile terminal).
Regarding claim 11, the claim has been analyzed and rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 12, the claim has been analyzed and rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 2.
Regarding claim 13, the claim has been analyzed and rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 3.
Regarding claim 15, the claim has been analyzed and rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 5.
Regarding claim 16, the claim has been analyzed and rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 6.
Regarding claim 19, the claim has been analyzed and rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 9.
8. Claims 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee, US 2010/0222079 in view of Cheng et al., US 2012/0245847, and in view of Okude et al., US 2012/0072107.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Lee and Cheng teaches the mobile terminal according to claim 3, further comprising a touch panel which is unified with the display (See Lee, [0067]-[0068]), wherein when the current position of the mobile terminal does not coincide with the position information of the destination, the controller is configured to, as an alternative control (See analysis of claim 1):
select a traveling route, based on a selection and of a touch input (See Lee, [0067]-[0068], [0145]-[0155]; Cheng, [0048]-[0049]), from among a travelling route from the current position of the mobile terminal to the place (See Lee, [0145]-[0155]; Cheng, [0048]-[0049]);
calculate a traveling time of the selected travelling route (See Lee, [0145]-[0155]; Cheng, [0048]-[0049]); and
calculate a date and time of departure from the current position based on the
date and time of the scheduled event and the traveling time of the selected travelling
route (See Lee, [0145]-[0155]; Cheng, [0048]-[0049]).
The combination of Lee and Cheng is silent with respect to the selection being from an input for selection of a route from a plurality of travelling routes.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Okude teaches of the selection being from an input for selection of a route from a plurality of travelling routes (See [0005] and [0052]-[0053]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Lee and Cheng to have incorporated the teachings of Okude for the mere benefit of being able to find alternative and/or quicker routes.
Regarding claim 14, the claim has been analyzed and rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 4.
9. Claims 7-8, 10, 17-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee, US 2010/0222079 in view of Cheng et al., US 2012/0245847 and in further view of Sekiguchi, US 2009/0165049.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Lee and Cheng teaches the mobile terminal according to claim 1.
The combination is silent with respect to wherein the wireless communication circuitry is further configured to communicate with an external apparatus to transmit an instruction to control the external apparatus.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Sekiguchi teaches of to wherein the wireless communication circuitry is further configured to communicate with an external apparatus to transmit an instruction to control the external apparatus (See [0027], [0047]-[0055] and [0081]-[0093]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Lee and Cheng to have incorporated the teachings of Sekiguchi for the mere benefit of providing for different types of events.
Regarding claim 8, the combination teaches the mobile terminal according to claim 7, wherein the wireless communication circuitry is further configured to
communicate with the external apparatus based on a Wi-Fi communication standard
and/or a Bluetooth communication standard (See Sekiguchi, [0027], [0047]-[0055] and [0081]-[0093]).
Regarding claim 10, the combination teaches the mobile terminal according to claim 1, wherein the controller is further configured to obtain a video content via the
wireless communication circuitry and display the video content on the display (See Sekiguchi, [0027], [0047]-[0055] and [0081]-[0093]).
Regarding claim 17, the claim has been analyzed and rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 7.
Regarding claim 18, the claim has been analyzed and rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 8.
Regarding claim 20, the claim has been analyzed and rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 10.
Conclusion
10. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Contact
11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ricky Chin whose telephone number is 571-270-3753. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30-6:00.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Benjamin Bruckart can be reached on 571-272-3982. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 703-872-9306.
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).
/Ricky Chin/
Primary Examiner
AU 2424
(571) 270-3753
Ricky.Chin@uspto.gov