DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
This action is in response to Applicant’s August 6, 2026, submission. Claims 1-20 are pending in the current application.
Claim Objections
Regarding Claim 11, line 5, it appears that the language “the yoke” should be changed to “a yoke.”
Regarding Claim 11, line 6, it appears that the language “the ambient” should be changed to “an ambient”.
Regarding Claim 11, line 8, perhaps the language “an ambient” should be changed to “the ambient.”
Regarding Claim 13, line 2, it appears that the language “the yoke” should be changed to “a yoke.”
Regarding Claim 13, line 3, it appears that the language “a yoke” should be changed to “the yoke.”
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 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).
Claims 1, 3, 4, and 7-10, are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1, 2, 3, and 7-10, respectively, of Palmer (U.S. Pat. No. 12,152,933 B2). Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the limitations in present Claims 1, 3, 4, and 7-10, are within the scope of subject matter claimed in Claims 1, 2, 3, and 7-10, of Palmer.
The language “user input structure” is within the scope of subject matter of the language “at least one button”. For example, Claim 2, ll. 1-2, of the present application states that the “user input structure” is “a button”.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 5, and 6, are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Claims 11-20 would be allowable but for the above-identified objections.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Anthony R. Jimenez whose telephone number is (313) 446-6518. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 10 AM – 9 PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Renee Luebke, can be reached at (571) 272-2009. 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.
/ANTHONY R JIMENEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2831
