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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 39-58 are pending.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/19/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Nonstatutory 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 39-58 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-12 of US Pat. 11,082,536. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are directed to substantially similar methods corresponding with systems of the aforementioned patent. For example, contrast instant claims 39 and 52 with claim 1 of ‘536:
Instant Claims 39 and 52
‘536 claim 1
A method of communication between computing devices, comprising:
A system, comprising:
communicatively coupling a plurality of computing devices to a server through a wireless network to access an announcement program;
a server having a non-transitory computer readable memory containing an announcement program; a plurality of computing devices communicatively coupled to said server through a wireless network to access said announcement program, said program executable to:
transmitting an identification request including a security code from a first computing device to a second computing device;
transmit an identification request from a first computing device to a second computing device, said identification request including a security code;
transmitting an identification answer from said second computing device to said first computing device verifying receipt of said identification request including said security code by said second computing device; (claim 52) delimiting a time period in which said first computing device or said second computing device respectively maintains said identification request or said identification answer.
transmit an identification answer to said first of said plurality of computing devices verifying receipt of said identification request by said second computing device,
wherein said first or said second computing device permissions delimit a time period in which said first computing device or said second computing device respectively maintains said identification request or said identification answer;
announcing said security code by operation of said second computing device, or an announcement device communicatively coupled to said second computing device, to allow a first user associated with said first computing device to identify a second user associated with said second computing device.
announce said security code by operation of said second computing device or an announcement device communicatively coupled to said second computing device to allow a first user associated with said first computing device to identify a second user associated with said second computing device.
Further, remaining instant claims 40-51 and 53-59 correspond with subject matter disclosed by claims 2-12 of ‘536.
Therefore, if a patent were to be granted, it may result in an improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” of the subject matter and may lead to possible harassment by multiple assignees.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: label 162 of Fig. 12. It appears this label should be 102 rather than 162. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 39-49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(2) as being anticipated by Moosavi et (US Pub. No. 2010/0215187; cited on IDS), hereafter, “Moosavi.”
As to claim 39, Moosavi discloses a method of communication between computing devices, comprising:
communicatively coupling a plurality of computing devices to a server through a wireless network to access an announcement program (Abstract, Figs. 1 and 4),
transmitting an identification request including a security code from a first computing device to a second computing device ([0032]-[0034], particularly, “the tag to transmit connection information (step 300') for connecting to the public address system 100 (i.e. type, encryption keys, PIN, seat number, etc.)…In response to downloading the connection information, the wireless mobile communication device 110, 110', 110'', etc. launches an application (step 305), which causes the device 110, 110', 110'' to wirelessly send a request message to back-end system 170 via one of either antenna 180 or the cellular network 130, Internet 140 and messaging server 150 under control of messaging infrastructure 160 (step 310). The request message is processed by the back-end system 170 (step 315), either automatically or under control of the MC, to arbitrate between the user request and any other pending user requests to access the public address system 100 via their wireless mobile communication devices 110, 110', 110'', etc.”; identifying information (e.g. information including a “seat number”) of wireless mobile communication device (“a first computing device”) reading on “a security code”)
transmitting an identification answer from said second computing device to said first computing device verifying receipt of said identification request including said security code by said second computing device ([0028], particularly, “In one embodiment, the back-end system 170 may send a confirmation message to the wireless mobile communication device 110, 110', 110'', for displaying a message via display 212 to indicate that the user's request is pending.”);
announcing said security code by operation of said second computing device, or an announcement device communicatively coupled to said second computing device, to allow a first user associated with said first computing device to identify a second user associated with said second computing device ([0034], particularly, “the tag to transmit connection information (step 300') for connecting to the public address system 100 (i.e. type, encryption keys, PIN, seat number, etc.)…In response to downloading the connection information, the wireless mobile communication device 110, 110', 110'', etc. launches an application (step 305), which causes the device 110, 110', 110'' to wirelessly send a request message to back-end system 170 via one of either antenna 180 or the cellular network 130, Internet 140 and messaging server 150 under control of messaging infrastructure 160 (step 310). The request message is processed by the back-end system 170 (step 315), either automatically or under control of the MC, to arbitrate between the user request and any other pending user requests to access the public address system 100 via their wireless mobile communication devices 110, 110', 110'', etc.”; as the MC can “arbitrate between the user request(s)” identifying information must be displayed to the MC).
As to claim 40, Moosavi discloses said security code includes visual announcement data, audio announcement data, or tactile announcement data, and combinations thereof ([0032]-[0034]; particularly, “to transmit connection information (step 300') for connecting to the public address system 100 (i.e. type, encryption keys, PIN, seat number, etc.)”).
As to claim 41, Moosavi discloses said identification request further comprises first computing device identifying data ([0032]-[0034]; particularly, “to transmit connection information (step 300') for connecting to the public address system 100 (i.e. type, encryption keys, PIN, seat number, etc.)”).
As to claim 42, Moosavi discloses presenting said first computing device identifying data by said second device which allows said second user of said second computing device to identify said first user of said first computing device. ([0034], particularly, “The request message is processed by the back-end system 170 (step 315), either automatically or under control of the MC, to arbitrate between the user request and any other pending user requests to access the public address system 100 via their wireless mobile communication devices 110, 110', 110'', etc.”).
As to claim 43, Moosavi discloses presentation of said first computing device identifying data by said second device includes visual indicia, audio indicia, tactile indicia, global position system location coordinates of said first computing device, and combinations thereof ([0032]-[0034]; particularly, “to transmit connection information (step 300') for connecting to the public address system 100 (i.e. type, encryption keys, PIN, seat number, etc.)”).
As to claim 44, Moosavi discloses said identification request further comprises a second computing device identifying data inquiry ([0032]-[0034]; any of the wireless mobile communications devices can make inquiries).
As to claim 45, Moosavi discloses said identification answer further comprises second computing device identifying data ([0032]-[0034]; particularly, “to transmit connection information (step 300') for connecting to the public address system 100 (i.e. type, encryption keys, PIN, seat number, etc.)”).
As to claim 46, Moosavi discloses presenting said second computing device identifying data by said first computing device which allows said first user of said first computing device to identify said second user of said second computing device. ([0032]-[0034]).
As to claim 47, Moosavi discloses said presentation of said second computing device identifying data by said first computing device includes visual indicia, audio indicia, tactile indicia, global position system location coordinates of said second computing device, and combinations thereof ([0032]-[0034]; particularly, “to transmit connection information (step 300') for connecting to the public address system 100 (i.e. type, encryption keys, PIN, seat number, etc.)”).
As to claim 48, Moosavi discloses presenting an identification request element on said first computing device which by first user interaction causes transmission of said identification request from said first computing device to said second computing device ([0032]-[0034]; any of the wireless mobile communications devices can make inquiries).
As to claim 49, Moosavi discloses presenting an identification answer element on said second computing device which by second user interaction causes transmission of said identification answer from said second computing device to said first computing device ([0032]-[0034]; any of the wireless mobile communications devices can make inquiries).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 50, 51, 54, 57, and 58 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moosavi and what was well known in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application.
As to claims 50 and 51, Moosavi discloses the parent claims but does not disclose the aid program further executable to record second computing device permissions delimiting control of said second computing device by said first computing device and to record first computing device permissions delimiting control of said first computing device by said second computing device. However Official Notice (see MPEP 2144.03) is taken that recording permissions that delimit the control between two computing devices was a well-known and common practice prior to the effective filing date of the application. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to prior to the effective filing date of the application combine this fact with Moosavi as a means to provide greater security and control over the system.
As to claim 54, the teachings of Moosavi and what was well known in the art as combined in claim 50’s rejection further disclose delimiting control of said second computing device by said first computing device to announcing only said security code by said second computing device ([0032]-[0034]).
As to claim 57, the teachings of Moosavi and what was well known in the art as combined in claim 50’s rejection further disclose controlling said second computing device or said associated mobile announcement device by said first computing device delimited by said second computing device permissions (Moosavi, [0032]-[0034]).
As to claim 58, the teachings of Moosavi and what was well known in the art as combined in claim 50’s rejection further disclose controlling said first computing device by said second computing device delimited by said first computing device permissions (Moosavi, [0032]-[0034]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 52,53,55, and 56 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 as well as alleviating the Double Patenting Rejections.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS J DAILEY whose telephone number is (571)270-1246. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30am-6:00pm.
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, Umar Cheema can be reached on 571-270-3037. 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.
/THOMAS J DAILEY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2458