DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
The information disclosure statements filed on 10/9/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-14 are presented for examination.
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 1-6 and 8-13 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims of U.S. Patent No. 11.809,952 and 11,816,530 in view of Morita et al. (Morita et al. – 2005/0037816; herein after referred to as “Morita”).
Claim 1 is rejected in view of claims 13 and 15-16 of ‘952 patent in that they recite:
Claim 1 of the application
Claims 13 and 15-16 of the ‘952 patent
1. An apparatus comprising:
a microprocessor;
a graphical user interface comprising a display unit, the graphical user interface and the display unit are communicatively coupled to the microprocessor;
a communication interface communicatively coupled to the microprocessor, wherein, the microprocessor is configured to:
locate a decodable indicia within a content stream;
decode the decodable indicia to produce a decoding result;
display the decodable indicia and the content stream on the display unit;
receive a first user action through the communication interface, and in response to the first user action, the microprocessor is further configured to display the decoding result as an overlay on the display unit; and
receive a second user action through the communication interface, and in response to the second user action, [the microprocessor is configured to halt display of the decoding result].
12. An apparatus comprising:
at least one processor and at least one memory, the at least one memory having computer-coded instructions therein, the computer-coded instructions configured to, in execution with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to: derive data from a decoded message obtained based on decoding of at least one decodable indicia in at least one frame from content stream;
display a displayable content along with the content stream, wherein the displayable content is embedded in the content stream, and wherein the displayable content comprises at least the derived data; and
embed an overlay in the content stream, wherein the overlay includes the derived data.
13. The apparatus of claim 12, wherein the computer-coded instructions are configured to, in execution with the at least one processor, further cause the apparatus to:
receiving the content stream; and
identify the at least decodable indicia in the content stream.
15. The apparatus of claim 12, wherein the computer-coded instructions are configured to, in execution with the at least one processor, further cause the apparatus to display the derived data along with the content stream in response to a user action.
16. The apparatus of claim 12, wherein the computer-coded instructions configured to, in execution with the at least one processor, further cause the apparatus to receive an input indicative of a user action to select the at one decodable indicia, wherein the at least one decodable indicia is decoded to produce the decoded message in response to the reception of the input.
Claims 1 and 8 of the ‘530 patent
1. An apparatus comprising: at least one processor and at least one memory, the at least one memory having computer-coded instructions therein, the computer-coded instructions configured to, in execution with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to: identify at least one decodable indicia in at least one frame from a stream of content; generate a flag indicating a status of decoding of the at least one decodable indicia; generate a displayable content based on the flag; and display the displayable content along with the at least one frame.
8. The apparatus of claim 7, wherein the representation of at least one decoded message is a thumbnail of the item.
As can be seen, claims 13, 15-16 of the 952 and claims 1 and 8 of the ‘530 patent disclose all limitations of claim 1 of the instant application except the microprocessor is configured to halt display of the decoding result.
Morita discloses the halting the display in response to the user input (Morita; par. 0099 – “ is displayed and at the same time the timer is activated. Upon passing of the delay time set in the timer, image decoding starts. When the key is kept depressed, however, the CPU outputs a long-depression signal (2) to demand the halting of the image decoding. Therefore, the burden of stopping image decoding results in slight delay in displaying character information corresponding to a search B. When the key is kept depressed thereafter, a repeat signal to display the next information is input and the deactivation and activation of the timer are performed every time the signal input is made. Consequently, the display time for character information associated with the search B immediately after the mode change to the scroll-involved search mode becomes shorter than that for character information associated with the subsequent searches C and D.”)
In view of Morita’s teachings, it would have been obvious at the time of the filing date of the
Invention to implement the step of halting the display as taught in the ‘952 patent. The modification is well within the skill levels and expectations of an ordinary skilled in the art in view Morita’s teachings.
Regarding claim 2, see the discussions to claim 1 in view of the ‘952/Morita. Further, the claim is rejected in view of claims 13 and 23 of the ‘952 patent.
Regarding claim 3, see the discussions to claim 1 in view of the ‘952/Morita. Further, the claim is rejected in view of claims 13 and 23 of the ‘952 patent.
Regarding claim 4, see the discussions to claim 1 in view of the ‘952/Morita. Further, the claim is rejected in view of claims 6, 13, and 24 of the ‘952 patent.
Regarding claim 5, see the discussions to claim 1 in view of the ‘952/Morita. Further, the claim is rejected in view of claims 6, 13, and 23 of the ‘952 patent.
Regarding claim 6, see the discussions to claim 1 in view of the ‘952/’530/Morita. Further, the claim is rejected in view of claims 6, 13, and 23 of the ‘952 patent.
Regarding claim 8, see the discussions to claim 1 in view of the ‘952/’530/Morita.
Regarding claim 9, see the discussions to claim 1 in view of the ‘952/’530/Morita. Further, the claim is rejected in view of claim 3 of the 530 patent.
Regarding claim 10, see the discussions to claim 1 in view of the ‘952/’530/Morita. Further, the claim is rejected in view of claim 16 of the ‘530 patent.
Regarding claim 11, see the discussions to claim 1 in view of the ‘952/’530/Morita. Further, the claim is rejected in view of claims 13 and 35 of the ‘530 patent.
Regarding claim 12, see the discussions to claim 1 in view of the ‘952/’530/Morita. Further, the claim is rejected in view of claims 12 and 16 of the ‘530 patent.
Regarding claim13, see the discussions to claim 1 in view of the ‘952/’530/Morita. Further, the claim is rejected in view of claims 6, 13, and 23 of the ‘952 patent.
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims of U.S. Patent No. 11.809,952 and 11,816,530 in view of Morita et al. (Morita et al. – 2005/0037816; herein after referred to as “Morita”) and further in view of 8,944,313.
Regarding claims 7 and 14, see the discussions to claim 1 and 8 in view of the ‘952/’530/Morita. The claims differ in calling for the method of claim 8, wherein at least one of the first user action or the second user action is selected from the group consisting of a tooltip display enacted with a cursor and a MouseOver event enacting with a hovering pointer on the display unit.
The ‘313 patent disclose the display and computer system wherein the graphical user interface action is selected from the group consisting of a tooltip display enacted with a cursor and a MouseOver event enacting with a hovering pointer on the display.
It would have been obvious at the time of the filing date of the invention to incorporate GUI interface in the system as taught by the ‘952/’530/Morita. The modification is well within the skill levels and expectations of an ordinary skill in the art in view of the ‘313 patent.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THIEN MINH LE whose telephone number is (571)272-2396. The examiner can normally be reached 6:30-5:00 PM M-Th..
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 Paik can be reached at 571-272-2404. 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.
/THIEN M LE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2876
Prosecution Insights