Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
DETAILED ACTION
The application of Michael Ignazio for Devices And Methods For Locating Accessories of An Electronic Device filed 1/18/25 has been examined. Claims 2-21 are pending.
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 2,10, and 16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 10,410,485
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims 2,10, and 16 are generally broader than the limitation of 10 of US Patent 10,410,485. The limitations of claims 2,10, and 16 are broadly recited in claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 10,410,485.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 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 –
(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of application for patent in the United States.
Claim(s) 2-21 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Sweeney et al. US Patent Application Publication 20090058670.
Regarding claim 2, Sweeney et al. teaches a computer-implemented method comprising detecting, by an electronic device, a disconnection of an accessory from the electronic device (paragraph 019); determining, by the electronic device, based at least in part on the disconnection, a first location corresponding to where the accessory was disconnected from the electronic device (paragraph 039); determining, by the electronic device, via a background process, a second location of the accessory by comparing the first location to a current location of the electronic device (paragraph 039-40); and issuing, by the electronic device, a notification associated with the second location (paragraph 038).
Regarding claim 3, Sweeney teaches the background process facilitates detection of the second location without being readily presented (paragraph 037).
Regarding claim 4, Sweeney teaches the background process facilitates detection of the second location without interfering with a user operating other applications on the electronic device (background application can be run anytime, paragraph 037).
Regarding claim 5, Sweeney teaches executing, by the electronic device, to periodically search for the accessory until at least one of the second location is determined or the electronic device receives a request to stop execution of the background process (paragraph 041,054).
Regarding claim 6, Sweeney teaches determining, by the electronic device, a distance between the first location and the current location, wherein issuing the notification is based at least in part on the distance (vibration is faster when the user is closer to the accessory, paragraph 022).
Regarding claim 7, Sweeney teaches the distance is based at least in part on a signal strength between the electronic device and the accessory (paragraph 022).
Regarding claim 8, Sweeney teaches issuing the notification is based at least in part on the distance satisfying a threshold distance value (paragraph 028).
Regarding claim 9, Sweeney teaches confirming, by the electronic device, that the second location is proximate an actual location of the accessory based at least in part on the distance satisfying a threshold distance value (tactile feedback is provided, paragraph 022).
Regarding claim 10, Sweeney teaches one or more non-transitory computer-readable media comprising computer-executable instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of an electronic device, cause the electronic device to perform operations comprising: detecting, by the electronic device, a disconnection of an accessory from the electronic device (paragraph 019,039); determining, by the electronic device, based at least in part on the disconnection, a first location corresponding to where the accessory was disconnected from the electronic device (paragraph 039); determining, by the electronic device, via a background process, a second location of the accessory by comparing the first location to a current location of the electronic device (paragraph 039-40); and issuing, by the electronic device, a notification associated with the second location (paragraph 038).
Regarding claim 11, Sweeney teaches the background process facilitates detection of the second location without being readily presented (paragraph 037).
Regarding claim 12, Sweeney teaches the background process facilitates detection of the second location without interfering with a user operating other applications on the electronic device (background application can be run anytime, paragraph 037).
.
Regarding claim 13, Sweeney teaches executing, by the electronic device, to periodically search for the accessory until at least one of the second location is determined or the electronic device receives a request to stop execution of the background process paragraph 041,054).
Regarding claim 15, Sweeney teaches additional computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the electronic device to perform additional operations comprising determining, by the electronic device, a distance between the first location and the current location, wherein issuing the notification is based at least in part on the distance (vibration is faster when the user is closer to the accessory, paragraph 022).
Regarding claim 16, Sweeney teaches additional computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the electronic device to perform additional operations comprising confirming, by the electronic device, that the second location is proximate an actual location of the accessory based at least in part on the distance satisfying a threshold distance value (paragraph 028).
Regarding claim 17, Sweeney teaches the background process facilitates detection of the second location without being readily presented (tactile feedback is provided, paragraph 022)
Regarding claim 18, Sweeney teaches the background process facilitates detection of the second location without interfering with a user operating other applications on the electronic device (paragraph 037).
Regarding claim 19, Sweeney teaches the processor is further configured to access the memory and execute the additional computer-executable instructions to perform additional operations comprising executing, by the electronic device, to periodically search for the accessory until at least one of the second location is determined or the electronic device receives a request to stop execution of the background process .
Regarding claim 20, Sweeney teaches the processor is further configured to access the memory and execute the additional computer-executable instructions to perform additional operations comprising determining, by the electronic device, a distance between the first location and the current location, wherein issuing the notification is based at least in part on the distance (vibration is faster when the user is closer to the accessory, paragraph 022).
Regarding claim 21, Sweeney teaches the processor is further configured to access the memory and execute the additional computer-executable instructions to perform additional operations comprising confirming, by the electronic device, that the second location is proximate an actual location of the accessory based at least in part on the distance satisfying a threshold distance value (paragraph 028).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VERNAL U BROWN whose telephone number is (571)272-3060. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8AM-5PM, EST.
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, Steven Lim can be reached at 571 270 1210. 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.
/VERNAL U BROWN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2686