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 .
Priority
Applicant’s claim for domestic priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(e), 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) or indicate National Stage entry from a PCT application is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement submitted on 10/18/2024 has been considered by the Examiner and made of record in the application file.
Preliminary Amendment
The present Office Action is based upon the original patent application filed on 10/18/2024 as modified by the preliminary amendment filed on 03/16/2026. Claims 21-40 are now pending in the present application.
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 29-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. US 8929875. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because, by comparing the claims, all the limitations of claims 29-40 of the current application are similar and included in claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 8929875 with only some obvious wording or terminology variations. That is, claims 29-40 are anticipated by claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 8929875.
Claims 29-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-12 of U.S. Patent No. US 9300786. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because, by comparing the claims, all the limitations of claims 29-40 of the current application are similar and included in claims 1-12 of U.S. Patent No. 9300786 with only some obvious wording or terminology variations. That is, claims 29-40 are anticipated by claims 1-12 of U.S. Patent No. 9300786.
Claims 29-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. US 9509831. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because, by comparing the claims, all the limitations of claims 29-40 of the current application are similar and included in claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 9509831 with only some obvious wording or terminology variations. That is, claims 29-40 are anticipated by claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 9509831.
Claims 29-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-24 of U.S. Patent No. US 9876895. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because, by comparing the claims, all the limitations of claims 29-40 of the current application are similar and included in claims 1-24 of U.S. Patent No. 9876895 with only some obvious wording or terminology variations. That is, claims 29-40 are anticipated by claims 1-24 of U.S. Patent No. 9876895.
Claims 29-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. US 10554806. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because, by comparing the claims, all the limitations of claims 29-40 of the current application are similar and included in claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 10554806 with only some obvious wording or terminology variations. That is, claims 29-40 are anticipated by claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 10554806.
6. Claims 29-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11190634. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because, by comparing the claims, all the limitations of claims 29-40 of the current application are similar and included in claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11190634 with only some obvious wording or terminology variations. That is, claims 29-40 are anticipated by claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11190634.
Claims 29-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11647110. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because, by comparing the claims, all the limitations of claims 29-40 of the current application are similar and included in claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11647110 with only some obvious wording or terminology variations. That is, claims 29-40 are anticipated by claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11647110.
Claims 29-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12126753. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because, by comparing the claims, all the limitations of claims 29-40 of the current application are similar and included in claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12126753 with only some obvious wording or terminology variations. That is, claims 29-40 are anticipated by claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12126753.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure.
Choi et al. -US 9667811- disclose Mobile Terminal And Event Processing Method.
Huh -US 20130324071 A1- discloses MODIFYING ALERT MODES FOR ELECTRONIC DEVICES.
Chen et al. -US 20090143049 A1- disclose MOBILE TELEPHONE HUGS INCLUDING CONVEYED MESSAGES.
Serafat et al. -US 20050287994 A1- disclose Method Of Remotely Changing Operating Characteristics Of A Communications Device.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALLAHYAR KASRAIA N whose telephone number is (571)270-1772. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 am - 5: 00 pm.
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, RAFAEL PEREZ-GUTIERREZ can be reached at (571)272-7915. 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.
/ALLAHYAR KASRAIA N/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2642
Prosecution Insights