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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4, 11 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 4 recites that the “request being associated with the first type corresponds to the location being a first type of location”. It would appear that perhaps the intention of this limitation is to contradict the limitations of the parent claim 1, which states “obtaining a request to view environmental data that indicates a location of the physical environment” and the “request”, to view the data, being associated with a first or second type, by now saying that it’s not a request to view data corresponding to a location but somehow corresponds to a first or second type of location of the physical environment instead? In other words the claim appears to shift from modifying based on the request to view the data being of a first and second type, to modifying based on the location in the physical environment being of a first or second type, which raises concerns under 112(d) addressed below. Therefore the claim is generally vague and indefinite.
Claim 11 recites that the “request being associated with the first type corresponds to the location being a first type of location”. It would appear that perhaps the intention of this limitation is to contradict the limitations of the parent claim 8, which states “obtain a request to view environmental data corresponding to a physical environment” and the “request”, to view the data, being associated with a first or second type, by now saying that it’s not a request to view data corresponding to a location in the physical environment but somehow corresponds to a first or second type of location of the physical environment instead? In other words the claim appears to shift from modifying based on the request to view the data being of a first and second type, to modifying based on the location in the physical environment being of a first or second type, which raises concerns under 112(d) addressed below. Therefore the claim is generally vague and indefinite.
Claim 17 recites that the “request being associated with the first type corresponds to the location being a first type of location”. It would appear that perhaps the intention of this limitation is to contradict the limitations of the parent claim 8, which states “obtain a request to view environmental data corresponding to a physical environment” and the “request”, to view the data, being associated with a first or second type, by now saying that it’s not a request to view data corresponding to a location in the physical environment but somehow corresponds to a first or second type of location of the physical environment instead? In other words the claim appears to shift from modifying based on the request to view the data being of a first and second type, to modifying based on the location in the physical environment being of a first or second type, which raises concerns under 112(d) addressed below. Therefore the claim is generally vague and indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(d)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 4, 11 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 4 recites that the “request being associated with the first type corresponds to the location being a first type of location”. It would appear that perhaps the intention of this limitation is to contradict the limitations of the parent claim 1, which states “obtaining a request to view environmental data that indicates a location of the physical environment” and the “request”, to view the data, being associated with a first or second type, by now saying that it’s not a request to view data corresponding to a location but somehow corresponds to a first or second type of location of the physical environment instead? In other words the claim appears to shift from modifying based on the request to view the data being of a first and second type, to modifying based on the location in the physical environment being of a first or second type. As such claim 4 fails to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 11 recites that the “request being associated with the first type corresponds to the location being a first type of location”. It would appear that perhaps the intention of this limitation is to contradict the limitations of the parent claim 8, which states “obtain a request to view environmental data corresponding to a physical environment” and the “request”, to view the data, being associated with a first or second type, by now saying that it’s not a request to view data corresponding to a location in the physical environment but somehow corresponds to a first or second type of location of the physical environment instead? In other words the claim appears to shift from modifying based on the request to view the data being of a first and second type, to modifying based on the location in the physical environment being of a first or second type. As such claim 11 fails to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 17 recites that the “request being associated with the first type corresponds to the location being a first type of location”. It would appear that perhaps the intention of this limitation is to contradict the limitations of the parent claim 8, which states “obtain a request to view environmental data corresponding to a physical environment” and the “request”, to view the data, being associated with a first or second type, by now saying that it’s not a request to view data corresponding to a location in the physical environment but somehow corresponds to a first or second type of location of the physical environment instead? In other words the claim appears to shift from modifying based on the request to view the data being of a first and second type, to modifying based on the location in the physical environment being of a first or second type. As such claim 17 fails to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 4, 11 and 17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4 and 5 of U.S. Patent No. 12,136,264. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all the limitation of claims 4, 11 and 17 in the present application are found as obvious variants of the limitations in claims 1, 4 and 5 of USPN 12,136,264.
Claim 4, including the limitations of parent claim 1, of the present application compares to claim 1 of the 12,136,264 as indicated below:
Claims 1 and 4 of present application:
Claim 1 of USPN 12,136,264
Notes
(From claim 1)
A method comprising:
at a device including a non-transitory memory and one or more processors coupled with the non-transitory memory:
A method comprising:
at a device including an environmental sensor, a non-transitory memory, and one or more processors coupled with the environmental sensor and the non-transitory memory:
Similar, current applications limitation is broader.
(From claim 1)
obtaining a request to view environmental data corresponding to a physical environment;
obtaining, via the environmental sensor, environmental data corresponding to a physical environment;
Current application recites obtaining a “request to view” environmental data, that is substantially similar to just obtaining the environmental data disclosed in claim 1 of USPN 12,136,264
(From claim 1)
identifying a first portion of the environmental data that indicates a location of the physical environment;
identifying a first portion of the environmental data that indicates a location of the physical environment;
Identical
(From claim 1)
in response to the request being associated with a first type, performing a first type of modification to the first portion of the environmental data;
(From claim 4) wherein the request being associated with the first type corresponds to the location being a first type of location;
in response to the location being a first location type, performing a first type of modification to the first portion of the environmental data; and
Current application claim 4 states that the first type of request corresponds to a first type of location which is substantially similar to this limitation claim 1 in USPN 12,136,264
(From claim 1)
in response to the request being associated with a second type that is different from the first type, performing a second type of modification to the first portion of the environmental data, wherein the second type of modification is different from the first type of modification.
(From claim 4)
wherein the request being associated with the second type corresponds to the location being a second type of location that is different from the first type of location
in response to the location being a second location type that is different from the first location type, performing a second type of modification to the first portion of the environmental data.
Current application claim 4 states that the second type of request corresponds to a second type of location which is substantially similar to this limitation claim 1 in USPN 12,136,264
Claim 11, including the limitations of parent claim 8, of the present application compares to claim 4 of the 12,136,264 as indicated below:
Claims 8 and 11 of present application:
Claim 4 of USPN 12,136,264
Notes
(From claim 8)
A device comprising: one or more processors; a non-transitory memory; and one or more programs stored in the non-transitory memory, which, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the device to:
A device comprising: one or more processors; a non-transitory memory; an environmental sensor; and one or more programs stored in the non-transitory memory, which, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the device to:
Identical
(From claim 8)
obtain a request to view environmental data corresponding to a physical environment;
obtain, via the environmental sensor, environmental data corresponding to a physical environment;
Current application recites obtaining a “request to view” environmental data, that is substantially similar to just obtaining the environmental data disclosed in claim 4 of USPN 12,136,264
(From claim 8)
identify a first portion of the environmental data that indicates a location of the physical environment;
identify a first portion of the environmental data that indicates a location of the physical environment;
Identical
(From claim 8)
in response to the request being associated with a first type, perform a first type of modification to the first portion of the environmental data;
(From claim 11)
wherein the request being associated with the first type corresponds to the location being a first type of location;
in response to the location being a first location type, perform a first type of modification to the first portion of the environmental data;
Current application claim 11 states that the first type of request corresponds to a first type of location which is substantially similar to this limitation claim 4 in USPN 12,136,264
(From claim 8)
in response to the request being associated with a second type that is different from the first type, perform a second type of modification to the first portion of the environmental data, wherein the second type of modification is different from the first type of modification
(From claim 11)
wherein the request being associated with the second type corresponds to the location being a second type of location that is different from the first type of location
in response to the location being a second location type that is different from the first location type, perform a second type of modification to the first portion of the environmental data
Current application claim 11 states that the second type of request corresponds to a second type of location which is substantially similar to this limitation claim 4 in USPN 12,136,264
Claim 17, including the limitations of parent claim 14, of the present application compares to claim 5 of the 12,136,264 as indicated below:
Claims 14 and 17 of present application:
Claim 5 of USPN 12,136,264
Notes
(From claim 14)
A non-transitory memory storing one or more programs, which, when executed by one or more processors of a device, cause the device to:
A non-transitory memory storing one or more programs, which, when executed by one or more processors of a device, cause the device to:
Identical
(From claim 14)
obtain a request to view environmental data corresponding to a physical environment;
obtain, via an environmental sensor, environmental data corresponding to a physical environment;
Current application recites obtaining a “request to view” environmental data, that is substantially similar to just obtaining the environmental data disclosed in claim 1 of USPN 12,136,264
(From claim 14)
identify a first portion of the environmental data that indicates a location of the physical environment;
identify a first portion of the environmental data that indicates a location of the physical environment;
Identical
(From claim 14)
in response to the request being associated with a first type, perform a first type of modification to the first portion of the environmental data;
(From claim 17)
wherein the request being associated with the first type corresponds to the location being a first type of location;
in response to the location being a first location type, perform a first type of modification to the first portion of the environmental data;
Current application claim 17 states that the first type of request corresponds to a first type of location which is substantially similar to this limitation claim 5 in USPN 12,136,264
(From claim 14)
in response to the request being associated with a second type that is different from the first type, perform a second type of modification to the first portion of the environmental data, wherein the second type of modification is different from the first type of modification
(From claim 17)
wherein the request being associated with the second type corresponds to the location being a second type of location that is different from the first type of location
in response to the location being a second location type that is different from the first location type, perform a second type of modification to the first portion of the environmental data
Current application claim 17 states that the second type of request corresponds to a second type of location which is substantially similar to this limitation claim 5 in USPN 12,136,264
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-3, 5-10, 12-16 and 18-20 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding independent claim 1, and similarly independent claims 8 and 14, none of the prior art teach or fairly suggests the limitations of “in response to the request being associated with a first type, performing a first type of modification to the first portion of the environmental data” and “in response to the request being associated with a second type that is different from the first type, performing a second type of modification to the first portion of the environmental data, wherein the second type of modification is different from the first type of modification”, in combination with the other limitations of the claim. The prior art of US2016/0294781 to Ninan et al. (“Ninan”) discloses a obtaining a request to view image data and based on the request type (i.e. permissions of the user) the image is modified by blurring regions. Additionally, the prior art of US2010/0246890 to Ofek et al. (“Ofek”) discloses identifying a region of an image corresponding to a location of a physical environment (e.g. house number) and modifying the region based on the location being a first type. However, neither Ninan, Ofek, nor any other prior art found teach or fairly suggests performing different types of modifications on the region/portion of the data/image based on the request to view the data being of a first or second type.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AARON W CARTER whose telephone number is (571)272-7445. The examiner can normally be reached 8am - 5pm (Mon - Fri).
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, John Villecco can be reached at (571) 272-7319. 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.
/AARON W CARTER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2661
Prosecution Insights