Notice of Pre-AIA or 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 .
2. This communication is in response to the Application No. 18/934,084 filed on 10/31/24. Claims 1 – 20 has been examined.
Double Patenting
3. 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.
4. Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,148,255. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because see the reason below:
Instant Application
Pat # 12,148,255
A method comprising: receiving, at a content streaming device and from a backend server, a low-energy address for a low-energy network of a mobile device, the low-energy address of the mobile device being registered on the backend server with respect to a structure, wherein the low-energy address is stored locally on the content streaming device; obtaining, at the content streaming device, a measurement of signal strengths relating to the mobile device over the low-energy network and using the low-energy address; determining, by the content streaming device, that the signal strengths are greater than a threshold; and in response to determining that the signal strengths are greater than the threshold, causing, by the content streaming device, a lock corresponding to the structure to unlock.
A method comprising: receiving, at a set-back box and from a backend server, a low-energy address for a low-energy network of a mobile device, the low-energy address of the mobile device being registered on the backend server as part of a check-in process to a structure, wherein the low-energy address is stored locally on the set-back box; obtaining, at the set-back box, a measurement of signal strengths relating to the mobile device over the low-energy network and using the low-energy address; determining, by the set-back box, that the signal strengths are greater than a threshold; and in response to determining that the signal strengths are greater than the threshold, causing, by the set-back box, a lock corresponding to the structure to unlock.
So, the instant application claim differs that it claims a content streaming device while the Patent # 12,148,255 claims set-back box. So, whether the devices is streaming device or the set-back box the functionality of the claim(s) are identical. So, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art to replace the set-box box with streaming device since the functionality is the same.
5. Claim 2 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 12,148,255. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because see the reason below:
Instant Application
Pat # 12,148,255
The method of claim 1, wherein obtaining, at the content streaming device, the measurement of the signal strengths relating to the mobile device comprises: measuring, by the content streaming device over the low-energy network and using the low-energy address, the signal strengths to or from the mobile device, from or to the content streaming device, respectively.
The method of claim 1, wherein the obtaining, at the set-back box, the measurement of the signal strengths relating to the mobile device comprises: measuring, by the set-back box over the low-energy network and using the low-energy address, the signal strengths to or from the mobile device, from or to the set-back box, respectively.
So, the instant application claim differs that it claims a content streaming device while the Patent # 12,148,255 claims set-back box. So, whether the devices is streaming device or the set-back box the functionality of the claim(s) are identical. So, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art to replace the set-box box with streaming device since the functionality is the same.
6. Claim 3 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 12,148,255. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because see the reason below:
Instant Application
Pat # 12,148,255
The method of claim 1, wherein: the lock is configured to measure the signal strengths relating to the mobile device over the low-energy network and using the low-energy address, and obtaining, at the content streaming device, the measurement of the signal strengths relating to the mobile device comprises receiving the measurement of the signal strengths from the lock.
The method of claim 1, wherein: the lock is configured to measure the signal strengths relating to the mobile device over the low-energy network and using the low-energy address, and the obtaining, at the set-back box, the measurement of the signal strengths relating to the mobile device comprises receiving the measurement of the signal strengths from the lock.
So, the instant application claim differs that it claims a content streaming device while the Patent # 12,148,255 claims set-back box. So, whether the devices is streaming device or the set-back box the functionality of the claim(s) are identical. So, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art to replace the set-box box with streaming device since the functionality is the same.
7. Claim 4 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 12,148,255.
Instant Application
Pat # 12,148,255
The method of claim 1, wherein the structure is a room.
The method of claim 1, wherein the structure is a room.
8. Claim 5 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 12,148,255.
Instant Application
Pat # 12,148,255
The method of claim 1, wherein the low-energy address of the mobile device is registered on the backend server by being scanned using a scanner that is communicatively connected with the backend server.
The method of claim 1, wherein the low-energy address of the mobile device is registered on the backend server by being scanned as part of the check-in process using a scanner that is communicatively connected with the backend server.
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art at the time of the filing to have the scanner with or without part of check-in progress. Since the functionally is the same.
8. Claim 6 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 6 of U.S. Patent No. 12,148,255.
Instant Application
Pat # 12,148,255
The method of claim 5, wherein the low-energy address of the mobile device is a Bluetooth low energy address.
The method of claim 5, wherein the low-energy address of the mobile device is a Bluetooth low energy address
9. Claim 7 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 12,148,255.
Instant Application
Pat # 12,148,255
The method of claim 1, further comprising: actively scanning, using a scanning processor, signal strengths of low-energy addresses of devices in Bluetooth low energy protocol.
The method of claim 1, further comprising: actively scanning, using a scanning processor, signal strengths of low-energy addresses of devices in Bluetooth low energy protocol.
10. Claim 8 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. 12,148,255.
Instant Application
Pat # 12,148,255
The method of claim 1, further comprising: detecting a presence of the mobile device in response to determining that the signal strengths are greater than the threshold.
The method of claim 1, further comprising: detecting a presence of the mobile device in response to determining that the signal strengths are greater than the threshold.
11. Claim 9 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,148,255.
Instant Application
Pat # 12,148,255
The method of claim 1, wherein the signal strengths are implemented as received signal strength indicator (RSSI) levels.
The method of claim 1, wherein the signal strengths are implemented as received signal strength indicator (RSSI) levels.
12. Claim 10 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 12,148,255.
Instant Application
Pat # 12,148,255
The method of claim 1, wherein the received low-energy address is encrypted.
The method of claim 1, wherein the received low-energy address is encrypted.
13. Claim 11 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,148,255.
Instant Application
Pat # 12,148,255
The method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving a customization command associated with the mobile device; and causing actions corresponding to the customization command to be performed.
The method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving a customization command associated with the mobile device; and performing actions corresponding to the customization command.
14. Claim 12 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 13 of U.S. Patent No. 12,148,255.
Instant Application
Pat # 12,148,255
The method of claim 11, wherein the customization command comprises at least one of to turn a light on, to turn television on to a specific channel, or to play music.
The method of claim 12, wherein the customization command comprises at least one of to turn a light on, to turn television on to a specific channel, or to play music.
15. Claim 13 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,148,255.
Instant Application
Pat # 12,148,255
The method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving, at the content streaming device, a second low-energy address of a second mobile device; storing the second low-energy address locally on the content streaming device; utilizing the locally stored second low-energy address to detect a presence of the second mobile device; and transmitting, in response to detecting the presence of the second mobile device, a command to unlock the lock of the structure.
The method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving, at the set-back box, a second low-energy address of a second mobile device; storing the second low-energy address locally on the set-back box; utilizing the locally stored second low-energy address to detect a presence of the second mobile device; and transmitting, in response to detecting the presence of the second mobile device, a command to unlock the lock of the structure.
So, the instant application claim differs that it claims a content streaming device while the Patent # 12,148,255 claims set-back box. So, whether the devices is streaming device or the set-back box the functionality of the claim(s) are identical. So, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art to replace the set-box box with streaming device since the functionality is the same.
16. Claim 14 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,148,255.
Instant Application
Pat # 12,148,255
The method of claim 13, further comprising: transmitting a notification to the mobile device that the lock is unlocked in response to detecting the presence of the second mobile device.
The method of claim 14, further comprising: transmitting a notification to the mobile device that the lock is unlocked in response to detecting the presence of the second mobile device.
Regarding claim 15, the system substantially has same limitations as claim 1, thus the same rejection is applicable.
Regarding claim 16, the system substantially has same limitations as claim 1, thus the same rejection is applicable.
17. Claim 16 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,148,255.
Instant Application
Pat # 12,148,255
The system of claim 15, wherein causing the lock corresponding to the structure to unlock comprises: transmitting, from the content streaming device to a lock controlling processor, a command for unlocking the lock.
The system of claim 16, wherein the causing the lock corresponding to the structure to unlock comprises: transmitting, from the set-back box to a lock controlling processor, a command for unlocking the lock.
So, the instant application claim differs that it claims a content streaming device while the Patent # 12,148,255 claims set-back box. So, whether the devices is streaming device or the set-back box the functionality of the claim(s) are identical. So, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art to replace the set-box box with streaming device since the functionality is the same.
18. Claim 17 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,148,255.
Instant Application
Pat # 12,148,255
The system of claim 15, wherein: the lock is configured to measure the signal strengths relating to the mobile device over the low-energy network and using the low-energy address, and obtaining, at the content streaming device, the measurement of the signal strengths relating to the mobile device comprises receiving the measurement of the signal strengths from the lock.
The system of claim 16, wherein: the lock is configured to measure the signal strengths relating to the mobile device over the low-energy network and using the low-energy address, and the obtaining, at the set-back box, the measurement of the signal strengths relating to the mobile device comprises receiving the measurement of the signal strengths from the lock.
19. Claim 18 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,148,255.
Instant Application
Pat # 12,148,255
The system of claim 15, wherein obtaining, at the content streaming device, the measurement of the signal strengths relating to the mobile device comprises measuring, by the content streaming device over the low-energy network and using the low-energy address, the signal strengths to or from the mobile device, from or to the content streaming device, respectively.
The system of claim 16, wherein the obtaining, at the set-back box, the measurement of the signal strengths relating to the mobile device comprises measuring, by the set-back box over the low-energy network and using the low-energy address, the signal strengths to or from the mobile device, from or to the set-back box, respectively.
So, the instant application claim differs that it claims a content streaming device while the Patent # 12,148,255 claims set-back box. So, whether the devices is streaming device or the set-back box the functionality of the claim(s) are identical. So, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art to replace the set-box box with streaming device since the functionality is the same.
Regarding claim 20, the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium substantially has same limitations as claim 1, thus the same rejection is applicable.
Conclusion
20. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TANMAY K SHAH whose telephone number is (571)270-3624. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri - 8:00 - 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, Chieh Fan can be reached at 571-272-3042. 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.
TANMAY K. SHAH
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2632
/TANMAY K SHAH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2632
Prosecution Insights