Detailed Action
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is responsive to the 1/16/2026 communication(s). As per the claims filed 10/01/2025:
Claims 2-12 are pending.
Claim(s) 2, 11-12 is/are independent claim(s).
Note Regarding Prior Art
Examiner cites particular columns, paragraphs, figures and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Note Regarding AIA Status
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.
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.
Claim2, 11, 12 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1, 9, 17 of U.S. Patent No. 11698710 (hereinafter: The patent). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patent claims anticipate the instant application claims as shown below.
Claim 2:
The patent discloses a computer system that is in communication with a display generation component and one or more input devices, comprising: One or more processors [claim 1, col 59, lines 24-27] 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, col 59, lines 28-30]:
receiving, via the one or more input devices, a first set of one or more inputs, to enable the computer system to log a first type of user activity during a first subset of a recurring time period [claim 1, col 59, lines 30-42];
after enabling logging of the first type of user activity during the first subset of the recurring time period, receiving a second set of one or more inputs, wherein the second set of one or more inputs include a first input to initiate a first log entry corresponding to the first type of user activity during the first subset of the recurring time period [claim 1, col 59, lines 43-50]; and
after receiving the first input to initiate the first log entry [claim 1, col 59, lines 51-54]:
displaying, via the display generation component, a selectable confirmation user interface object for the first type of user activity [claim 1, col 59, lines 51-52]; and in response to receiving the second set of one or more inputs:
in accordance with a determination that the second set of one or more inputs includes selection of the selectable confirmation user interface object for the first type of user activity, logging an instance of the first type of user activity[claim 1, col 59, lines 55-60]; and
in accordance with a determination that the second set of one or more inputs does not include selection of the selectable confirmation user interface object for the first type of user activity, logging an event that is not an instance of the first type of user activity [claim 1, col 59, lines 51-54].
Claims 3-10 are rejected based on their dependency on a rejected base claim.
Independent claims 11-12 are rejected under the same rationale as claim 2 above. Additionally, the patent claims 9, and 17 anticipate the claimed limitations.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-12 allowed over the prior art but remain rejected under double patenting as set forth above.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The independent claims are allowable over the US Patent No. 9721066 (Funaro), the US Patent No. 9589445 (White), the US Patent No. 9224291 (Moll-Carrillo), the US Patent Application Pub. No. 20050079905 (Martens), and the US Patent No. 10576327 (Kim), because, although each of the cited prior art teaches identifying the type of activity that the user is engaged in and provide user interface for logging the data associated with the user activity. However, the prior art, alone or in any reasonable combination failed to disclose “after enabling logging of the first type of user activity during the first subset of the recurring time period, receiving a second set of one or more inputs, wherein the second set of one or more inputs include a first input to initiate a first log entry corresponding to the first type of user activity during the first subset of the recurring time period; and after receiving the first input to initiate the first log entry, displaying, via the display generation component, a selectable confirmation user interface object for the first type of user activity; and in response to receiving the second set of one or more inputs: in accordance with a determination that the second set of one or more inputs includes selection of the selectable confirmation user interface object for the first type of user activity, logging an instance of the first type of user activity and in accordance with a determination that the second set of one or more inputs does not include selection of the selectable confirmation user interface object for the first type of user activity, logging an event that is not an instance of the first type of user activity” as recited in each of claims 2, 11, and 12.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOWARD CORTES whose telephone number is (571)270-1383. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, 8:00 am - 5:00 pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Scott T Baderman can be reached on (571)272-3644. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HOWARD CORTES/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2118
