DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the following communication: The claims filed on 10/18/2024. This action is made non-final.
Claims 1-19 are pending in the case. Claims 1, 18, and 19 are independent claims.
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 claims for the benefit of U.S. Patent application 17/971,464 (now U.S. Patent No. 12,124,691) filed 10/21/2022 which is a continuation of U.S. Nonprovisional Patent Application No. 16/737,044 (now U.S. Patent No. 11,481,100) filed 10/09/2020, which claims priority to U.S. Provisional Patent application No. 62/866,569 filed on 06/25/2019 under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
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 1-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims as provided in the below table of U.S. Patent No. 11,481,100 (hereinafter ‘100).
Instant Application 18/920,809
Patent No. ‘100
Claim 1.
An electronic device, comprising:
- a display device;
- a rotatable input mechanism;
- one or more processors; and
- memory storing one or more programs configured to be executed by the one or more processors, the one or more programs including instructions for:
Claim 1.
An electronic device, comprising:
- a display device;
- a rotatable input mechanism;
- one or more processors; and
- memory storing one or more programs configured to be executed by the one or more processors, the one or more programs including instructions for:
- displaying, via the display device, a compass user interface with a direction indicator and a bearing indicator, wherein:
- displaying, via the display device, a compass user interface with a direction indicator and a bearing indicator, wherein:
+ the direction indicator provides an indication of a respective compass direction, wherein an appearance of the direction indicator is determined based on an orientation of the electronic device relative to the respective compass direction; and
+ the direction indicator provides an indication of a respective compass direction, wherein an appearance of the direction indicator is determined based on an orientation of the electronic device relative to the respective compass direction; and
+ the bearing indicator provides an indication of an offset from the respective compass direction;
+ the bearing indicator provides an indication of an offset from the respective compass direction;
- while concurrently displaying, via the display device, the direction indicator and the bearing indicator, detecting rotation of the rotatable input mechanism; and
- while concurrently displaying, via the display device, the direction indicator and the bearing indicator, detecting rotation of the rotatable input mechanism; and
- in response to detecting rotation of the rotatable input mechanism:
- in response to detecting rotation of the rotatable input mechanism:
+ in accordance with a determination that the electronic device is in a first mode, changing the displayed position of the bearing indicator from a first position to a second position by an amount that is determined in accordance with a magnitude of the rotation of the rotatable input mechanism; and
+ in accordance with a determination that the electronic device is in a first mode, changing the displayed position of the bearing indicator from a first position to a second position by an amount that is determined in accordance with a magnitude of the rotation of the rotatable input mechanism; and
+ in accordance with a determination that the electronic device is in a second mode different from the first mode: forgoing changing the displayed position of the bearing indicator relative to the direction indicator; and
+ in accordance with a determination that the electronic device is in a second mode different from the first mode: forgoing changing the displayed position of the bearing indicator relative to the direction indicator; and
+ updating an appearance of the compass user interface.
+ scrolling the compass user interface {scrolling ~ updating}
Claim 2
Claim 2
Claim 3
Claim 8
Claim 4
Claim 9
Claim 5
Claim 10
Claim 6
Claim 3
Claim 7
Claim 5
Claim 8
Claim 6
Claim 9
Claim 7
Claim 10
Claim 11
Claim 11
Claim 12
Claim 12
Claim 13
Claim 13
Claim 14
Claim 14
Claim 15
Claim 15
Claim 16
Claim 16
Claim 4
Claim 17
Claim 17
Claim 18
Claim 18 (Medium claim)
Claim 19
Claim 35 (Method claim)
As can be seen in the above table, the patented claims disclose all the features of the instant claims. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patented claims of the ‘100 patent contains all the elements of claims 1-19 of the instant application. As such claims 1-19 of the instant application are not patently distinct from the earlier patent claims and are unpatentable for obvious-type double patenting.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-19 would be allowable if overcome the double patenting rejection as rejected above.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Independent claims 1, 18, 19, when considered as a whole, are allowable over the prior art of record. Specifically, the prior art Chaudhri et al. (US 2017/0357320 A1) discloses a device comprises a display device (see Fig. 1A and ¶ 0006, 0082); one or more rotatable input mechanism (see Fig. 1A and ¶ 0113); one or more processors (see Fig. 1A and ¶ 0082); and memory storing one or more programs configured to be executed by the one or more processors, the one or more programs including instructions for (see Fig. 1A and ¶ 0082, 0108, 0115, 0125, 0156-0163): displaying, via the display device, a compass user interface with a direction indicator and a bearing indicator, wherein: the direction indicator provides an indication of a respective compass direction (see Figs. 17A-17B and ¶ 0291-0593), wherein an appearance of the direction indicator is determined based on an orientation of the electronic device relative to the respective compass direction (see Figs. 17A-17B and ¶ 0291-0593); and the bearing indicator provides an indication of an offset from the respective compass direction (see Figs. 17A-17B and ¶ 0291-0593); while concurrently displaying, via the display device, the direction indicator and the bearing indicator, detecting rotation of the rotatable input mechanism; and in response to detecting rotation of the rotatable input mechanism (see Figs. 17A-17B and ¶ 0291-0593; rotate the device).
Corl et al. (US 2019/0263487 A1) discloses a compass user interface (see Fig. 1-2 and ¶ 0028, 0034) with a direction indicator and a bearing indicator (see Figs. 1-2 and ¶ 0008); bearing indicators and heading indicators) wherein an appearance of the direction indicator is determined based on an orientation of the electronic device relative to the respective compass direction (see Fig. 1-2 and ¶ 0028, 0034); and the bearing indicator provides an indication of an offset from the respective compass direction (see Fig. 1-2 and ¶ 0028, 0034); while concurrently displaying, via the display device, the direction indicator and the bearing indicator, detecting rotation of the rotatable input mechanism; and in response to detecting rotation of the rotatable input mechanism (see Fig. 1-2 and ¶ 0028, 0034).
However, Chaudhri and Corl do not disclose:
in accordance with a determination that the electronic device is in a first mode, changing the displayed position of the bearing indicator from a first position to a second position by an amount that is determined in accordance with a magnitude of the rotation of the rotatable input mechanism; and in accordance with a determination that the electronic device is in a second mode different from the first mode: forgoing changing the displayed position of the bearing indicator relative to the direction indicator; and updating an appearance of the compass user interface.
The dependent claims further add limitations to the allowable subject matter of the corresponding independent claims; thus, they are also allowable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record on form PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicant is required under 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(c) to consider these references fully when responding to this action.
It is noted that any citation to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33,216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006,1009, 158 USPQ 275,277 (CCPA 1968)).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TUYETLIEN T TRAN whose telephone number is (571)270-1033. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:00 AM - 8:00 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, Irete (Fred) Ehichioya can be reached on 571-272-4034. 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.
/TUYETLIEN T TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2179
Prosecution Insights