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 .
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 claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claims because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claims. 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 reference 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. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321 (b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form 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 http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-l.jsp.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,222,215 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the following:
Regarding claims 1-7 of the currently examined application:
The currently examined claim 1 and the reference claim 15 include the following common features:
They describe a computer-implemented method for managing application interfaces based on user input, specifically using at least one hardware processor.
They involve in detecting a zoom command with a first interface/application which then triggers a second interface/application.
They involve a method for transitioning from a first application/window to a second application/window based on the zoom command.
The main differences between claim 1 and claim 15 are:
Claim 1 refers broadly to a “zoom command” while claim 15 is specifically requiring a “zoom-out command”.
Claim 15 requires an action taken after a threshold condition. Claim 1 does not include this threshold condition because it only requires a second interface is displayed in a second application window.
For that reason, claim 1 (broader claim) is considered obvious variation of claim 15 (narrower claim) because claim 15 simply adds limitation to the broader claim 1. Claim 15 specifies a threshold condition: “zoom out…below a threshold”. Claim 1 uses “zoom command” without a threshold condition. It is considered obvious to implement the specific zoom-out threshold as mention in claim 15 as a generic zoom command required in claim 1. The narrow claim 15 adds specific elements: “threshold, specific object types” to the broader concept in claim 1. Claim 1 simply omits the limiting details required in claim 15.
All of these show the claims at issue are not identical, but at least claim 1 is not patentably distinct from the reference claim 15 because the currently examined claim 1 would have been obvious over the reference claim 15 of the patent.
Regarding claims 8-14 of the currently examined application:
The currently examined claim 8 and the reference claim 1 include the following common features:
Both include one or more non-transitory computer readable media storing instructions, executed by one or more hardware processors.
They describe a computer-implemented method for managing application interfaces based on user input, specifically using at least one hardware processor.
They involve in detecting a zoom command with a first interface/application which then triggers a second interface/application.
They involve a method for transitioning from a first application/window to a second application/window based on the zoom command.
The main differences between claim 8 and claim 1 are:
Claim 8 refers broadly to a “zoom command” while claim 1 is specifically requiring a “zoom-out command”.
Claim 1 requires an action taken after a threshold condition. Claim 8 does not include this threshold condition because it only requires a second interface is displayed in a second application window.
For that reason, claim 8 (broader claim) is considered obvious variation of claim 1 (narrower claim) because claim 1 simply adds limitation to the broader claim 8. Claim 1 specifies a threshold condition: “zoom out…below a threshold”. Claim 8 uses “zoom command” without a threshold condition. It is considered obvious to implement the specific zoom-out threshold as mention in claim 1 as a generic zoom command required in claim 8. The narrow claim 1 adds specific elements: “threshold, specific object types” to the broader concept in claim 8. Claim 8 simply omits the limiting details required in claim 1.
All of these show the claims at issue are not identical, but at least claim 8 is not patentably distinct from the reference claim 1 because the currently examined claim 8 would have been obvious over the reference claim 1 of the patent.
Regarding claims 15-20 of the currently examined application:
The currently examined claim 15 and the reference claim 8 include the following common features:
Both include one or more hardware processors and one or more non-transitory computer-readable media.
They describe a computer-implemented method for managing application interfaces based on user input, specifically using at least one hardware processor.
They involve in detecting a zoom command with a first interface/application which then triggers a second interface/application.
They involve a method for transitioning from a first application/window to a second application/window based on the zoom command.
The main differences between claim 15 and claim 8 are:
Claim 15 refers broadly to a “zoom command” while claim 8 is specifically requiring a “zoom-out command”.
Claim 8 requires an action taken after a threshold condition. Claim 15 does not include this threshold condition because it only requires a second interface is displayed in a second application window.
For that reason, claim 15 (broader claim) is considered obvious variation of claim 8 (narrower claim) because claim 8 simply adds limitation to the broader claim 15. Claim 8 specifies a threshold condition: “zoom out…below a threshold”. Claim 15 uses “zoom command” without a threshold condition. It is considered obvious to implement the specific zoom-out threshold as mention in claim 8 as a generic zoom command required in claim 15. The narrow claim 8 adds specific elements: “threshold, specific object types” to the broader concept in claim 15. Claim 15 simply omits the limiting details required in claim 8.
All of these show the claims at issue are not identical, but at least claim 15 is not patentably distinct from the reference claim 8 because the currently examined claim 15 would have been obvious over the reference claim 8 of the patent.
For at least the reasons set forth above, the examined application claims 1-20 would have been obvious over the reference claims 1-20 of the cited patent No. 12,222,215 B2.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jakobson et al. (hereinafter referred to as “Jakobson”) (US 8,490,025 B2).
Regarding claims 1, 8, and 15, Jakobson teaches an electronic device (100) (e.g., a computer, cellular/smart phone, personal digital assistant, etc.), and a method displaying a geographic content on an electronic map, comprising: a first user interface in a first application window shown on the left of Fig. 1; a zoom command submitted via the first interface using at least stylus, touch screen, mechanical/electronic controls, etc. (see column 2, line 65 through column 3, line 49); in responsive to the zoom command, a second user interface in a second application window is shown on the right of Fig. 1, wherein the second application window is separated from the first application window.
Regarding claims 2, 9, and 16, Jakobson teaches that the map (110) is shown with map objects, such as points of interest (e.g., POI 130) (see column 3, lines 20-34); wherein the content (120) is associated with the POI (130) on the map (110) (see column 4, lines 18-24).
Regarding claims 3, 10, and 17, Jakobson teaches that the content (120) is shown with information (e.g, the layout of the shopping mall “Great Mall”) associated with the POI (130) that was not displayed in the first interface (see column 4, lines 35-48).
Regarding claims 4, 11, and 18, Jakobson teaches that the content (120) may be displayed on the in the electronic device (100) in response to a request to zoom-in while the current zoom-level is at maximum (see column 4, lines 18-24).
Regarding claims 5, 12, and 19, Jakobson teaches a first application window (700) and the second application window (704) are displayed concurrently (see Fig. 7A).
Regarding claims 6, 13, and 20, Jakobson teaches that the map-display application (1000) has many different application formats (e.g., 2D, 3D, aerial, road, etc.) (see Fig. 10A).
Regarding claims 7, 14, Jakobson teaches that the content (120) may be displayed on the in the electronic device (100) in response to a request to zoom-in while the current zoom-level is at maximum (see column 4, lines 18-24).
Citation of Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant disclosure. The following patent documents are cited in the PTO-892 to further show the state of the art in general: US-20100115462-A1, US-9245312-B2, US-11029173-B2, GB-2516472-A, and EP-2696269-A1.
Conclusions
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tuan C To whose telephone number is (571) 272-6985. The examiner can normally be reached on from 6:00AM to 2:30PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Ramya P Burgess, can be reached on (571) 272-6011.
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).
/TUAN C TO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3661