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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
1. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 4/9/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
2. Claims 1-2, 4-14, 16-20, and 22-30 are currently pending.
3. Claims 3, 15, 21, and 31-48 are canceled.
4. Claims 1-2, 4-14, 16-20, and 22-30 are currently amended.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
5. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
6. The means for receiving the initial dynamic alarm and event information is interpreted as the user interface and processor; the means for obtaining an event information update is interpreted as the transceiver and processor; and the means for calculating the alarm time modification, means for activating a device alarm, and means for determining an estimated travel time are interpreted as the processor.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
8. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
9. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
10. Claims 1-2, 4-10, 12-14, 16-17, 19-20, 22-28, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McGavran (US 20160358128 A1), in view of Lazar (US 20190295042 A1), and in further view of Fyke (US 20110231216 A1).
11. Regarding Claim 1, McGavran teaches a method of providing a dynamic alarm with a mobile device, comprising (McGavran: [0045]):
Receiving initial dynamic alarm information and event information… (McGavran: [0055]);
Obtaining… a message indicating an event information update… (McGavran: [0067] and [0069]);
And calculating an alarm time modification based on the event information update; and activating a device alarm based at least in part on the initial dynamic alarm information and the alarm time modification (McGavran: [0070] and [0074]).
McGarvan fails to explicitly an indication of a rendezvous time and a rendezvous location for a first user and a second user, the first user and the second user being separate users; an updated rendezvous time based on an estimated time of arrival of the second user to the rendezvous location; and calculating an alarm time modification… for the first user to reach the rendezvous location at the updated rendezvous time, wherein the alarm time modification for the first user is based on the estimated time of arrival of the second user to the rendezvous location.
However, in the same field of endeavor Lazar teaches receiving initial dynamic alarm information and event information, including an indication of a rendezvous time and a rendezvous location for a first user and a second user, the first user and the second user being separate users (Lazar: [0019], [0080], and [0088]);
Obtaining… a message indicating an event information update, including an updated rendezvous time based on an estimated time of arrival of the second user to the rendezvous location (Lazar: [0032], [0088], and [0089]);
And calculating an alarm time modification for the first user based on the event information update, for the first user to reach the rendezvous location at the updated rendezvous time, wherein the alarm time modification for the first user is based on the estimated time of arrival of the second user to the rendezvous location (Lazar: [0088], [0089], and [0090]).
McGavran and Lazar are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of navigation alarms. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify McGavran to incorporate the teachings of Lazar for the event information to include a rendezvous time and rendezvous location for a first and second user and to update the event information based on the arrival of the second user because it provides the benefit of determining accurate estimations for alarming users without the need for the user to be burdened with monitoring certain conditions, as explicitly explained in [0037] of Lazar.
McGarvan and Lazar fail to explicitly teach obtaining, at the mobile device associated with the first user and from a second device associated with the second user, a message indicating an event information update.
However, in the same field of endeavor Fyke teaches obtaining, at the mobile device associated with the first user and from a second device associated with the second user, a message indicating an event information update, including an updated rendezvous time based on an estimated time of arrival of the second user to the rendezvous location (Fyke: [0060] and [0070]).
McGavran, Lazar, and Fyke are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of navigation alarms. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify McGavran and Lazar to incorporate the teachings of Fyke to obtain a message indicating an event information update from a second device at the first mobile device because it provides the benefit of intelligently providing reminders to users based on unforeseen circumstances as explicitly explained in [0026] of Fyke. Fyke improves on Lazar because reminders are automatically sent directly from one user to another based on the determination that the arrival time of the user.
12. Regarding Claim 2, McGavran, Lazar, and Fyke remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further Lazar teaches the event information includes identification information associated with the second user (Lazar: [0050] and [0056]).
13. Regarding Claim 4, McGavran, Lazar, and Fyke remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further, McGavran teaches determining an estimated travel time from a location of a first device associated with the first user to the rendezvous location, wherein the alarm time modification is based in part on the estimated travel time (McGavran: [0036] and [0074]).
14. Regarding Claim 5, McGavran, Lazar, and Fyke remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further, McGavran teaches the event information includes vehicle- tracking information associated with a vehicle (McGavran: [0038] and [0042]).
15. Regarding Claim 6, McGavran, Lazar, and Fyke remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further, McGavran teaches the event information is associated with a schedule object in a schedule management application (McGavran: [0032] and [0055]).
16. Regarding Claim 7, McGavran, Lazar, and Fyke remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further, Lazar teaches the event information update includes the estimated time of arrival based on a current location of the second device associated with the second user (Lazar: [0088] and [0089]).
17. Regarding Claim 8, McGavran, Lazar, and Fyke remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further, McGavran teaches the event information update includes an estimated time of arrival for a vehicle (McGavran: [0042]).
18. Regarding Claim 9, McGavran, Lazar, and Fyke r remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further, Lazar teaches the event information update includes a schedule change in a schedule object in a schedule management application (Lazar: [0032] and [0040]).
19. Regarding Claim 10, McGavran, Lazar, and Fyke remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further, Lazar teaches calculating the alarm time modification includes adding a preparation time value (Lazar: [0032] and [0096]).
20. Regarding Claim 12, McGavran, Lazar, and Fyke remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further, McGavran teaches activating the device alarm includes sending a command to one or more internet of things (IoT) devices (McGavran: [0074] and [0109]).
21. Regarding Claim 13, McGavran teaches an apparatus, comprising: a memory; at least one processor operably coupled to the memory and configured to (McGavran: [0134]):
Receive initial dynamic alarm information and event information… (McGavran: [0055]);
Obtain… a message indicating an event information update… (McGavran: [0067] and [0069]);
And calculate an alarm time modification based on the event information update; and activate a device alarm based at least in part on the initial dynamic alarm information and the alarm time modification (McGavran: [0070] and [0074]).
McGarvan fails to explicitly teach an indication of a rendezvous time and a rendezvous location for a first user and a second user, the first user and the second user being separate users; an updated rendezvous time based on an estimated time of arrival of the second user to the rendezvous location; and calculate an alarm time modification… for the first user to reach the rendezvous location at the updated rendezvous time, wherein the alarm time modification for the first user is based on the estimated time of arrival of the second user to the rendezvous location.
However, in the same field of endeavor Lazar teaches to receive initial dynamic alarm information and event information, including an indication of a rendezvous time and a rendezvous location for a first user and a second user, the first user and the second user being separate users (Lazar: [0019], [0080], and [0088]);
Obtain… a message indicating an event information update, including an updated rendezvous time based on an estimated time of arrival of the second user to the rendezvous location (Lazar: [0032], [0088], and [0089]);
And calculate an alarm time modification for the first user based on the event information update, for the first user to reach the rendezvous location at the updated rendezvous time, wherein the alarm time modification for the first user is based on the estimated time of arrival of the second user to the rendezvous location (Lazar: [0088], [0089], and [0090]).
McGavran and Lazar are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of navigation alarms. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify McGavran to incorporate the teachings of Lazar for the event information to include a rendezvous time and rendezvous location for a first and second user and to update the event information based on the arrival of the second user because it provides the benefit of determining accurate estimations for alarming users without the need for the user to be burdened with monitoring certain conditions, as explicitly explained in [0037] of Lazar.
McGarvan and Lazar fail to explicitly teach to obtain, at the mobile device associated with the first user and from a second device associated with the second user, a message indicating an event information update.
However, in the same field of endeavor Fyke teaches to obtain, at the mobile device associated with the first user and from a second device associated with the second user, a message indicating an event information update, including an updated rendezvous time based on an estimated time of arrival of the second user to the rendezvous location (Fyke: [0060] and [0070]).
McGavran, Lazar, and Fyke are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of navigation alarms. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify McGavran and Lazar to incorporate the teachings of Fyke to obtain a message indicating an event information update from a second device at the first mobile device because it provides the benefit of intelligently providing reminders to users based on unforeseen circumstances as explicitly explained in [0026] of Fyke. Fyke improves on Lazar because reminders are automatically sent directly from one user to another based on the determination that the arrival time of the user.
22. Regarding Claim 14, McGavran, Lazar, and Fyke remains as applied above in Claim 13, and further Lazar teaches the event information includes identification information associated with the second user (Lazar: [0050] and [0056]).
23. Regarding Claim 16, McGavran, Lazar, and Fyke remains as applied above in Claim 13, and further, McGavran teaches the at least one processor is further configured to determine an estimated travel time from a location of a first device associated with the first user to the rendezvous location, wherein the alarm time modification is based in part on the estimated travel time (McGavran: [0036] and [0074]).
24. Regarding Claim 17, McGavran, Lazar, and Fyke remains as applied above in Claim 13, and further, Lazar teaches the event information update includes the estimated time of arrival based on a current location of the second device associated with the second user (Lazar: [0088] and [0089]).
25. Regarding Claim 19, McGavran teaches an apparatus for providing a dynamic alarm, comprising (McGavran: [0045]):
Means for receiving initial dynamic alarm information and event information… (McGavran: [0055]);
Means for obtaining… a message indicating an event information update… (McGavran: [0067] and [0069]);
And means for calculating an alarm time modification based on the event information update; and means for activating a device alarm based at least in part on the initial dynamic alarm information and the alarm time modification (McGavran: [0070] and [0074]).
McGarvan fails to explicitly teach an indication of a rendezvous time and a rendezvous location for a first user and a second user, the first user and the second user being separate users; an updated rendezvous time based on an estimated time of arrival of the second user to the rendezvous location; and means for calculating an alarm time modification… for the first user to reach the rendezvous location at the updated rendezvous time, wherein the alarm time modification for the first user is based on the estimated time of arrival of the second user to the rendezvous location.
However, in the same field of endeavor Lazar teaches means for receiving initial dynamic alarm information and event information, including an indication of a rendezvous time and a rendezvous location for a first user and a second user, the first user and the second user being separate users (Lazar: [0019], [0080], and [0088]);
Means for obtaining… a message indicating an event information update, including an updated rendezvous time based on an estimated time of arrival of the second user to the rendezvous location (Lazar: [0032], [0088], and [0089]);
And means for calculating an alarm time modification for the first user based on the event information update, for the first user to reach the rendezvous location at the updated rendezvous time, wherein the alarm time modification for the first user is based on the estimated time of arrival of the second user to the rendezvous location (Lazar: [0088], [0089], and [0090]).
McGavran and Lazar are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of navigation alarms. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify McGavran to incorporate the teachings of Lazar for the event information to include a rendezvous time and rendezvous location for a first and second user and to update the event information based on the arrival of the second user because it provides the benefit of determining accurate estimations for alarming users without the need for the user to be burdened with monitoring certain conditions, as explicitly explained in [0037] of Lazar.
McGarvan and Lazar fail to explicitly teach means for obtaining, at the mobile device associated with the first user and from a second device associated with the second user, a message indicating an event information update.
However, in the same field of endeavor Fyke teaches means for obtaining, at the mobile device associated with the first user and from a second device associated with the second user, a message indicating an event information update, including an updated rendezvous time based on an estimated time of arrival of the second user to the rendezvous location (Fyke: [0060] and [0070]).
McGavran, Lazar, and Fyke are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of navigation alarms. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify McGavran and Lazar to incorporate the teachings of Fyke to obtain a message indicating an event information update from a second device at the first mobile device because it provides the benefit of intelligently providing reminders to users based on unforeseen circumstances as explicitly explained in [0026] of Fyke. Fyke improves on Lazar because reminders are automatically sent directly from one user to another based on the determination that the arrival time of the user.
26. Regarding Claim 20, McGavran, Lazar, and Fyke remains as applied above in Claim 19, and further, Lazar teaches the event information includes identification information associated with the second user (Lazar: [0050] and [0056]).
27. Regarding Claim 22, McGavran, Lazar, and Fyke remains as applied above in Claim 19, and further, McGavran teaches means for determining an estimated travel time from a location a first device associated with the first user to the rendezvous location, wherein the alarm time modification is based in part on the estimated travel time (McGavran: [0036] and [0074]).
28. Regarding Claim 23, McGavran, Lazar, and Fyke remains as applied above in Claim 19, and further, McGavran teaches the event information includes vehicle-tracking information associated with a vehicle (McGavran: [0038] and [0042]).
29. Regarding Claim 24, McGavran, Lazar, and Fyke remains as applied above in Claim 19, and further, McGavran teaches the event information is associated with a schedule object in a schedule management application (McGavran: [0032] and [0055]).
30. Regarding Claim 25, McGavran, Lazar, and Fyke remains as applied above in Claim 19, and further, Lazar teaches the event information update includes the estimated time of arrival based on a current location of the second device associated with the second user (Lazar: [0088] and [0089]).
31. Regarding Claim 26, McGavran, Lazar, and Fyke remains as applied above in Claim 19, and further, McGavran teaches the event information update includes an estimated time of arrival for a vehicle (McGavran: [0042]).
32. Regarding Claim 27, McGavran, Lazar, and Fyke remains as applied above in Claim 19, and further, Lazar teaches teach the event information update includes a schedule change in a schedule object in a schedule management application (Lazar: [0032] and [0040]).
33. Regarding Claim 28, McGavran, Lazar, and Fyke remains as applied above in Claim 19, and further, Lazar teaches the means for calculating the alarm time modification includes means for adding a preparation time value (Lazar: [0032] and [0096]).
34. Regarding Claim 30, McGavran teaches a non-transitory processor-readable storage medium comprising processor- readable instructions to cause one or more processors to provide a dynamic alarm, comprising (McGavran: [0134] and [0142]):
Code for receiving initial dynamic alarm information and event information… (McGavran: [0055]);
Code for obtaining… a message indicating an event information update… (McGavran: [0067] and [0069]);
And code for calculating an alarm time modification based on the event information update; and code for activating a device alarm based at least in part on the initial dynamic alarm information and the alarm time modification (McGavran: [0070] and [0074]).
McGarvan fails to explicitly teach an indication of a rendezvous time and a rendezvous location for a first user and a second user, the first user and the second user being separate users; an updated rendezvous time based on an estimated time of arrival of the second user to the rendezvous location; and code for calculating an alarm time modification… for the first user to reach the rendezvous location at the updated rendezvous time, wherein the alarm time modification for the first user is based on the estimated time of arrival of the second user to the rendezvous location.
However, in the same field of endeavor Lazar teaches code for receiving initial dynamic alarm information and event information, including an indication of a rendezvous time and a rendezvous location for a first user and a second user, the first user and the second user being separate users (Lazar: [0019], [0080], and [0088]);
Code for obtaining… a message indicating an event information update, including an updated rendezvous time based on an estimated time of arrival of the second user to the rendezvous location (Lazar: [0032], [0088], and [0089]);
And code for calculating an alarm time modification for the first user based on the event information update, for the first user to reach the rendezvous location at the updated rendezvous time, wherein the alarm time modification for the first user is based on the estimated time of arrival of the second user to the rendezvous location (Lazar: [0088], [0089], and [0090]).
McGavran and Lazar are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of navigation alarms. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify McGavran to incorporate the teachings of Lazar for the event information to include a rendezvous time and rendezvous location for a first and second user and to update the event information based on the arrival of the second user because it provides the benefit of determining accurate estimations for alarming users without the need for the user to be burdened with monitoring certain conditions, as explicitly explained in [0037] of Lazar.
McGarvan and Lazar fail to explicitly teach code for obtaining, at the mobile device associated with the first user and from a second device associated with the second user, a message indicating an event information update.
However, in the same field of endeavor Fyke teaches code for obtaining, at the mobile device associated with the first user and from a second device associated with the second user, a message indicating an event information update, including an updated rendezvous time based on an estimated time of arrival of the second user to the rendezvous location (Fyke: [0060] and [0070]).
McGavran, Lazar, and Fyke are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of navigation alarms. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify McGavran and Lazar to incorporate the teachings of Fyke to obtain a message indicating an event information update from a second device at the first mobile device because it provides the benefit of intelligently providing reminders to users based on unforeseen circumstances as explicitly explained in [0026] of Fyke. Fyke improves on Lazar because reminders are automatically sent directly from one user to another based on the determination that the arrival time of the user.
35. Claims 11, 18, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McGavran (US 20160358128 A1), in view of Lazar (US 20190295042 A1), in view of Fyke (US 20110231216 A1), and in further view of Price (US 20170031325 A1).
36. Regarding Claim 11, McGavran, Lazar, and Fyke remains as applied as above in Claim 1.
McGavran, Lazar, and Fyke fail to explicitly teach calculating the alarm time modification includes calculating a snooze time value based on the initial dynamic alarm information and the event information update, and wherein activating the device alarm includes providing a snooze option via the first user interface based on the snooze time value.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Price teaches calculating the alarm time modification includes calculating a snooze time value based on the initial dynamic alarm information and the event information update, and wherein activating the device alarm includes providing a snooze option via the first user interface based on the snooze time value (Price: [0008] and [0018]).
McGavran, Lazar, Fyke and Price are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of navigation alarms. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify McGavran, Lazar, and Fyke to incorporate the teachings of Price to include a snooze time based on the initial dynamic alarm and event information update because it provides the benefit of activating an alarm based on the total time to reach the appointment, as explained in [0008] and [0018] of Price. This provides the additional benefit of ensuring the user is on time by accounting for different factors that affect the arrival time.
37. Regarding Claim 18, McGavran, Lazar, and Fyke remains as applied as above in Claim 13.
McGavran, Lazar, and Fyke fail to explicitly teach the at least one processor is further configured to calculate a snooze time value based on the initial dynamic alarm information and the event information update and provide a snooze option to a user based on the snooze time value.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Price teaches the at least one processor is further configured to calculate a snooze time value based on the initial dynamic alarm information and the event information update and provide a snooze option to a user based on the snooze time value (Price: [0008] and [0018]).
McGavran, Lazar, Fyke and Price are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of navigation alarms. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify McGavran, Lazar, and Fyke to incorporate the teachings of Price to include a snooze time based on the initial dynamic alarm and event information update because it provides the benefit of activating an alarm based on the total time to reach the appointment, as explained in [0008] and [0018] of Price. This provides the additional benefit of ensuring the user is on time by accounting for different factors that affect the arrival time.
38. Regarding Claim 29, McGavran, Lazar, and Fyke remains as applied as above in Claim 19.
McGavran, Lazar, and Fyke fail to explicitly teach the means for calculating the alarm time modification comprises means for calculating a snooze time value based on the initial dynamic alarm information and the event information update, and wherein the means for activating the device alarm includes means for providing a snooze option to a user based on the snooze time value.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Price teaches the means for calculating the alarm time modification comprises means for calculating a snooze time value based on the initial dynamic alarm information and the event information update, and wherein the means for activating the device alarm includes means for providing a snooze option to a user based on the snooze time value (Price: [0008] and [0018]).
McGavran, Lazar, Fyke and Price are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of navigation alarms. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify McGavran, Lazar, and Fyke to incorporate the teachings of Price to include a snooze time based on the initial dynamic alarm and event information update because it provides the benefit of activating an alarm based on the total time to reach the appointment, as explained in [0008] and [0018] of Price. This provides the additional benefit of ensuring the user is on time by accounting for different factors that affect the arrival time.
Response to Arguments
39. Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claims 1-2, 4-14, 16-20, and 22-30 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Fyke (US 20110231216 A1) has been applied to teach the amended subject matter of obtaining a message indicating an event information update from a second device at the mobile device associated with the first user in the rejection above as cited in at least paragraphs [0060] and [0070]. Fyke teaches to directly and automatically send a message to another user attending the same meeting when the first user’s arrival time is different than the initial event meeting time.
40. McGavran (US 20160358128 A1), in view of Lazar (US 20190295042 A1), in view of Fyke (US 20110231216 A1), and in further view of Price (US 20170031325 A1) teaches all aspects of the invention. The rejection is modified according to the newly amended language but still maintained with the current prior art of record.
41. Claims 1-2, 4-14, 16-20, and 22-30 remain rejected under their respective grounds and rational as cited above, and as stated in the prior office action which is incorporated herein. Also, although not specifically argued, all remaining claims remain rejected under their respective grounds, rationales, and applicable prior art for these reasons cited above, and those mentioned in the prior office action which is incorporated herein.
Conclusion
42. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL T SILVA whose telephone number is (571)272-6506. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Tues: 7AM - 4:30PM ET; Wed-Thurs: 7AM-6PM ET; Fri: OFF.
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, Angela Ortiz can be reached at 571-272-1206. 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.
/MICHAEL T SILVA/Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights