DETAILED ACTION
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 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 1, 2, 4-9, 11-13, 15-18, and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13-15, 17, and 18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,001,878. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the pending claims are a variation of the patented claims. Claims 1, 2, 4-9, 11-13, 15-18, and 20 of the instant application are anticipated by patent claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13-15, 17, and 18, in that claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13-15, 17, and 18 of the patent contains all the limitations of claims 1, 2, 4-9, 11-13, 15-18, and 20 of the instant application. Claims 1, 2, 4-9, 11-13, 15-18, and 20 of the instant application therefore are not patently distinct from the earlier patent claims and as such are unpatentable for anticipatory-type double patenting.
Instant Application 19/184,263
U.S. Patent 12,001,878
1. An apparatus of an extended reality (XR) wearable device comprising: at least one processor;
14. An augmented reality (AR) wearable device comprising: one or more processors; and
and at least one memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, configure the at least one processor to perform operations comprising:
a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, configure the AR wearable device to perform operations comprising: registering an uncaught exception handler;
invoking a pass-through application, the pass-through application comprising an on-resume procedure; registering an uncaught exception handler;
invoking a pass-through application as a background process, the pass-through application comprising an on-resume procedure; invoking an application as a foreground process; in response to detecting the application is unresponsive,
invoking an application, the invoking the application causing the application to become a foreground process;
invoking the on-resume procedure to switch the pass-through application as the foreground process from the background process, and causing, by the on-resume procedure, the application to be restarted as the foreground process and the pass-through application to be switched as the background process from the foreground process; and
in response to an exception without an exception handler, invoking the uncaught exception handler,
in response to an exception without an exception handler, invoking the uncaught exception handler as the foreground process,
creating, by the uncaught exception handler, a pending intent to restart the application by setting a flag associated with a process associated with the application, and
(Claim 1).
5. The method of claim 1, wherein in response to the exception without an exception handler further comprises: creating, by the uncaught exception handler, a pending intent to restart the application by setting a flag associated with a process associated with the application, the flag indicating the application is to be restarted if the process associated with the application is terminated.
causing, by the uncaught exception handler, the process associated with the application to be terminated; and
causing, by the uncaught exception handler, a process associated with the application to be terminated, and
in response to the flag associated with the process being set, restarting the application as the foreground process.
causing, by the uncaught exception handler, the application to be restarted as the foreground process.
The above table illustrates a comparative mapping between the limitations of claim 1 of the instant application and the limitations of claims 1, 5, and 14 of U.S. Patent 12,001,878. The following is a complete listing of the correspondence between the claims of the instant application to U.S. Patent 12,001,878.
Claims of Instant Application
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
15
16
17
18
20
Claims of U.S. Patent 12,001,878
14, 1, 5
15
14, 1, 4
14, 1, 5
14, 1, 7
14, 1, 8
14, 1, 10
14, 1, 11
14, 1, 13
1
2
4
5
17
18
17, 1, 4
Claims 3, 14, and 19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 5, and 14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,001,878 in view of Hunt (US 5,740,391). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the pending claims are a variation of the patented claims.
Claims 3, 14, and 19 of the instant application are obvious over patent claims 1, 5, and 14, in that claims 1, 5, and 14 of the patent contains all the limitations of claims 3, 14, and 19 of the instant application except for wherein the exception is one of: lack of activity of the application, a black screen, or a memory protection exception. Hunt discloses typical exceptions that can be detected can include memory protection violations. Hunt’s exceptions that can be detected including memory protection violations would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art to be applicable to the handling of exceptions without and exception handler of the patent and the results would have been predictable in the handling of memory protection violations that have no exception handler. Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 3, 14, and 19 of the instant application therefore are not patently distinct from the earlier patent claims and as such are unpatentable for obviousness-type double patenting.
Claim 10 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 5, and 14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,001,878 in view of Arasaratnam (US 2012/0246124 A1). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the pending claims are a variation of the patented claims.
Claim 10 of the instant application is obvious over patent claims 1, 5, and 14, in that claims 1, 5, and 14 of the patent contains all the limitations of claim 10 of the instant application except for wherein the exception without the exception handler is user input buffer overflow, the user input buffer overflow indicating the application is unresponsive. Arasaratnam discloses security exceptions including rogue inputs such as buffer overflows. Arasaratnam’s exceptions including rogue inputs such as buffer overflows would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art to be applicable to the handling of exceptions without and exception handler of the patent and the results would have been predictable in the handling of exceptions including rogue inputs such as buffer overflows. Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim 10 of the instant application therefore is not patently distinct from the earlier patent claims and as such are unpatentable for obviousness-type double patenting.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ahrens et al. (US 8,230,505 B1) discloses exceptions that can be observed include stack and memory states.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHI HOANG whose telephone number is (571)270-3417. 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, JASON CHAN can be reached at (571)272-3022. 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.
/PHI HOANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2619
Prosecution Insights