DETAILED ACTION
Notice of 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 .
Double Patenting
2. Claims 1 and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 20 respectively of co-pending Application No. 18/910,066 in view of DeLeeuw et al (US Patent: 6,006,282)
The subject matter claimed in the instant application is an obvious variation of that in the referenced patent application: 18/910,066 in view of DeLeeuw et al (US Patent: 6,006,282). The referenced patent publication and the instant application are claiming similar subject matter as examples indicated in the table below. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
18/910,066 does not explicitly prevent execution by specifying executing predetermined control not to execute processing based on an operation on the predetermined screen after instructing the guest OS to execute the second processing. In the same field of endeavor, DeLeeuw et al teaches: executing predetermined control not to execute processing based on an operation on the predetermined screen after instructing the guest OS to execute the second processing [abstract]. Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of the two to control predetermined screen so that when one system has control, it prevents other input operation from being processed.
Instant Application
1. A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium that stores a program operatable on an operating system (OS), which when executed by one or more processors of a first information processing apparatus having a first operating environment on a first OS operating as a host OS but not on a guest OS, causes the first information processing apparatus to perform a first method, the first method comprising:
instructing, based on execution of a predetermined operation on a predetermined screen displayed by the program, the host OS to execute first processing for establishing connection between a predetermined access point and the first information processing apparatus, and
executing, after the connection between the predetermined access point and the first information processing apparatus is established by instructing the host OS to execute the first processing, communication via the connection between the predetermined access point and the first information processing apparatus;
wherein the program, which when executed by one or more processors of a second information processing apparatus having a second operating environment on a second OS operating as the host OS and on the guest OS, causes the second information processing apparatus to perform a second method, the second method comprising:
instructing, based on execution of the predetermined operation on the predetermined screen displayed by the program, the guest OS to execute second processing for establishing connection between the predetermined access point and the second information processing apparatus,
executing predetermined control not to execute processing based on an operation on the predetermined screen after instructing the guest OS to execute the second processing, and executing, after the connection between the predetermined access point and the second information processing apparatus is established by instructing the guest OS to execute the second processing, communication via the connection between the predetermined access point and the second information processing apparatus.
Application 18/910,066
1. A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium that stores a program operatable on an operating system (OS), which when executed by one or more processors of a first information processing apparatus having a first operating environment on a first OS operating as a host OS but not on a guest OS, causes the first information processing apparatus to perform a first method, the first method comprising:
instructing the host OS to execute first processing for establishing connection between a predetermined access point and the first information processing apparatus, and
executing, after the host OS displays a screen for establishing the connection between the predetermined access point and the first information processing apparatus by instructing the host OS to execute the first processing, processing of confirming whether the connection between the predetermined access point and the first information processing apparatus is established, based on a fact that the program returns to a state in which the program operates on a foreground;
wherein the program, which when executed by one or more processors of a second information processing apparatus having a second operating environment on a second OS operating as the host OS and on the guest OS, causes the second information processing apparatus to perform a second method, the second method comprising:
instructing the guest OS to execute second processing for establishing connection between the predetermined access point and the second information processing apparatus, and
executing, after the guest OS displays a screen for establishing the connection between the predetermined access point and the second information processing apparatus by instructing the guest OS to execute the second processing, processing of confirming whether the connection between the predetermined access point and the second information processing apparatus is established, based on a lapse of a predetermined time since the guest OS is instructed to execute the second processing.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all the corresponding limitations are disclosed.
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 §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) 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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Contact
3. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FAN ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-3751. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9:00-5:00.
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, Benny Tieu 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.
/Fan Zhang/
Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2674
Prosecution Insights