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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims Status
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, and 8-11 filed 07/11/2025 have been amended. Claims 1-13 are pending and have been rejected. Claims 12 and 13 are newly added claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/11/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s asserts that Goodman fails to teach receiving an instruction to execute a process on a device from a user via a messenger application. The Examiner respectfully disagrees as Goodman (U.S. Publication 2011/0314144) in paragraph 0055, shows communication that the particular user device is engaged (e.g., a text message) using event application. Applicant’s respectfully disagrees as Goodman fails to teach identifying a responder who is present at the place of the device. The Examiner respectfully disagrees as Goodman (U.S. Publication 2011/0314144) in paragraphs 0013, 0017-0018, shows first responders (e.g., police, medical personnel, firemen, etc.) to aid the authorities/first responders in responding to the event, wherein the event application can detect a rapid change in user device activity level from the particular geographic location and/or from a particular cell. Applicat’s respectfully disagrees as Goodman Fails to teach making a request to a responder to attend to the device. The Examiner respectfully disagrees as Goodman (U.S. Publication 2011/0314144) in paragraphs 0014, 0017-0018, first responders respond to user devices. Paragraph 0078, shows that a request is made for the event-specific network content information, other alert information from local, state, regional and/or federal authorities.
As it is Applicant's right to claim as broadly as possible their invention, it is also the Examiner's right to interpret the claim language as broadly as possible. It is the Examiner's position that the detailed functionality that allows for Applicant's invention to overcome the prior art used in the rejection, fails to differentiate in detail how these features are unique. It is clear that Applicant must be able to submit claim language to distinguish over the prior arts used in the above rejection sections that discloses distinctive features of Applicant's claimed invention. It is suggested that Applicant compare the original specification and claim language with the cited prior art used in the rejection section above or the remark section below to draw an amended claim set to further the prosecution.
Failure for Applicant to narrow the definition/scope of the claims and supply arguments commensurate in scope with the claims implies the Applicant's intent to broaden claimed invention.
Based on the rationale explained above, the Examiner disagrees with the prior arts being silent to the claimed embodiment.
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, 3-5, and 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable by Goodman (U.S. Publication 2011/0314144), hereinafter “Goodman”.
As to claim 1, Goodman discloses an information processing apparatus comprising: a processor configured to: receive an instruction to execute a process on a device from a user via a messenger application (Goodman, see [0055], communication that the particular user device is engaged (e.g., a text message)); identify a responder who is present at the place of the device and who is able to attend to the device, with reference to information regarding a place of the device, schedule information of possible responders, and history information of conversations made by the possible responders using the messenger application (Goodman, see [0013], first responders (e.g., police, medical personnel, firemen, etc.) to aid the authorities/first responders in responding to the event. See [0017-0018], the event application can detect a rapid change in user device activity level from the particular geographic location and/or from a particular cell, wherein event application has call history, user device capabilities, geo mapping information, 911 trigger, and other alert notifications, wherein the event application can be used to send messages received from users of user devices); and make a request, by using the messenger application to the responder to attend to the device (Goodman, see [0014], [0017-0018], first responders respond to event trigger notification of user devices. See [0078], event application can send the query to service gateway server requesting the event-specific network content information, other alert information from local, state, regional and/or federal authorities).
As to claim 3, Goodman discloses everything disclosed in claim 2, wherein the processor is configured to identify the responder by targeting and analyzing a message included in the history information and related to a change in a schedule that has been set in the schedule information and a message included in the history information and related to a schedule that is not set in the schedule information (Goodman, see [0014], first responders respond to event trigger notification of user devices. See 0017-0018], event application has call history, user device capabilities, geo mapping information, 911 trigger, and other alert notifications, wherein the event application can be used to send messages received from users of user devices).
As to claim 4, Goodman discloses everything disclosed in claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to identify the responder by taking into consideration degrees of busyness of the possible responders at the time point when the device is to be attended to and after the time point, the degrees of busyness being estimated by analyzing the schedule information and the history information (Goodman, see [0018], [0068], event application can determine that a potential event exists if the quantity of incidents are detected within a period of time in order to indicate dispatch of first responders).
As to claim 5, Goodman discloses everything disclosed in claim 4, wherein the processor is configured to estimate the degrees of busyness of the possible responders with reference to setting states of schedules in a predetermined period from the time point when the device is to be attended to, the schedules being included in the schedule information, and with reference to content of conversations made in a predetermined period from an occurrence detection time point when attention to the device is required, the conversations being included in the history information (Goodman, see [0018], the event application may receive information that an event has occurred based on the detection of a potential event, wherein the information can include call content (text, video, voice), call history, geo mapping information, 911 trigger, etc. See [0068], event application can determine that a potential event exists if the quantity of incidents is detected within a period of time in order to indicate dispatch of first responders). As to claim 10, Goodman a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program causing a computer to execute a process comprising: receiving an instruction to execute a process on a device from a user via a messenger application (Goodman, see [0055], communication that the particular user device is engaged (e.g., a text message)); identifying a responder who is present at the place of information regarding a place of the device and who is able to respond to the event (Goodman, see [0013], first responders (e.g., police, medical personnel, firemen, etc.) to aid the authorities/first responders in responding to the event. See [0017-0018], the event application can detect a rapid change in user device activity level from the particular geographic location and/or from a particular cell, wherein event application has call history, user device capabilities, geo mapping information, 911 trigger, and other alert notifications, wherein the event application can be used to send messages received from users of user devices); and making a request, by using the messenger application, to the responder to attend to the device (Goodman, see [0014], [0017-0018], first responders respond to event trigger notification of user devices. See [0078], event application can send the query to service gateway server requesting the event-specific network content information, other alert information from local, state, regional and/or federal authorities).
As to claim 11, Goodman discloses an information processing method comprising:
receiving an instruction to execute a process on a device from a user via a messenger application (Goodman, see [0055], communication that the particular user device is engaged (e.g., a text message)); identifying a responder who is present at the place of information regarding a place of the device and who is able to respond to the event (Goodman, see [0013], first responders (e.g., police, medical personnel, firemen, etc.) to aid the authorities/first responders in responding to the event. See [0017-0018], the event application can detect a rapid change in user device activity level from the particular geographic location and/or from a particular cell, wherein event application has call history, user device capabilities, geo mapping information, 911 trigger, and other alert notifications, wherein the event application can be used to send messages received from users of user devices); and making a request, by using the messenger application, to the responder to attend to the device (Goodman, see [0014], [0017-0018], first responders respond to event trigger notification of user devices. See [0078], event application can send the query to service gateway server requesting the event-specific network content information, other alert information from local, state, regional and/or federal authorities).
As to claim 12, Goodman discloses everything disclosed in claim 1, wherein the device is at a place other than a location of the user (Goodman, see [0092], user devices locations can be located prior to the event time).
As to claim 13, Goodman discloses everything disclosed in claim 1, wherein the history information of conversations is text information (Goodman, see [0030], text history).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claims 2 and 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goodman (U.S. Publication 2011/0314144), hereinafter “Goodman” in view of Zyto et al. (U.S. Publication 2014/0297743), hereinafter “Zyto”.
As to claim 2, Goodman discloses everything disclosed in claim 1, but is silent to the processor is configured to: extract from among the possible responders, scheduled-to-be-present persons who are present at the place of the device at a time point when the device is to be attended to, by analyzing the schedule information; extract as a being-present person from among the scheduled-to-be-present persons, a scheduled-to-be-present person who is inferred to be actually present at the place of the device at the time point when the device is to be attended to as a result of analyzing the history information of conversations made by the scheduled-to-be-present persons using the messenger application; and identify the extracted being-present person as the responder. However, Zyto discloses extract from among the possible responders, scheduled-to-be-present persons who are present at the place of occurrence at a time point when the event is to be responded, by analyzing the schedule information (Zyto, see [0031-0032], the service provider may analyze possible schedule information of users that can provide help); extract as a being-present person from among the scheduled-to-be-present persons, a scheduled-to-be-present person who is inferred to be actually present at the place of occurrence at the time point when the event is to be responded as a result of analyzing the history information of conversations made by the scheduled-to-be-present persons using the messenger application (Zyto, see [0032-0033], user A sends task request message to a plurality of contacts, wherein user B responds to requested task); and identify the extracted being-present person as the responder (Zyto, see [0032-0034], a user can cause a transfer of any funds/credits (e.g., cyber currency) for any requested items/services to a service provider that can be coordinating the request, to a contact who has accepted/completed the request, to a vendor identified by the contact). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Goodman in view of Zyto in order to further modify the method for notification indicating that an event has occurred from the teachings of Goodman with the method for coordinating tasks among a plurality of users from the teachings of Zyto.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because it would allow a service provider determine one or more contextual criteria for at least one task associated with at least one user (Zyto – Abstract).
As to claim 6, Goodman discloses everything disclosed in claim 1, but is silent to wherein the processor is configured to identify the responder by taking into consideration degrees of familiarity of the possible responders with the user, the degrees of familiarity being estimated by analyzing the history information. However, Zyto discloses wherein the processor is configured to identify the responder by taking into consideration degrees of familiarity of the possible responders with the user, the degrees of familiarity being estimated by analyzing the history information (Zyto, see [0027], the service provider utilizes criteria of a task, information of a user requesting the task, various information associated with the user's contacts (e.g., friends, social networking contacts, etc.), and the like for determining one or more contacts who may be able to efficiently perform the requested task.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Goodman in view of Zyto in order to further modify the method for notification indicating that an event has occurred from the teachings of Goodman with the method for coordinating tasks among a plurality of users from the teachings of Zyto.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because it would allow a service provider determine one or more contextual criteria for at least one task associated with at least one user (Zyto – Abstract).
As to claim 7, Goodman discloses everything disclosed in claim 6, but is silent to wherein the processor is configured to estimate each of the degrees of familiarity of the possible responders with the user with reference to at least one of the number of conversations with the user or the number of conversations started by the user, the conversations being included in the history information. However, Zyto discloses wherein the processor is configured to estimate each of the degrees of familiarity of the possible responders with the user with reference to at least one of the number of conversations with the user or the number of conversations started by the user, the conversations being included in the history information (Zyto, see [0027], the service provider utilizes criteria of a task, information of a user requesting the task, various information associated with the user's contacts (e.g., friends, social networking contacts, etc.), and the like for determining one or more contacts who may be able to efficiently perform the requested task. See [0043], a user would be willing to help out more based on contextual history which includes location history, activity history, social messaging history or combination thereof). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Goodman in view of Zyto in order to further modify the method for notification indicating that an event has occurred from the teachings of Goodman with the method for coordinating tasks among a plurality of users from the teachings of Zyto.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because it would allow a service provider determine one or more contextual criteria for at least one task associated with at least one user (Zyto – Abstract).
As to claim 8, Goodman discloses everything disclosed in claim 1, but is silent to the processor is configured to: record response track-record information regarding track records of responses made by responders in response to requests; and identify the responder by taking into consideration a response attitude toward attending to the device to be taken in response to the request, the response attitude being estimated from the response track-record information. However, Zyto discloses record response track-record information regarding track records of responses made by responders in response to requests (Zyto, see [0047-0048], determining one or more contacts of the user cannot perform task); identify the responder by taking into consideration a response attitude toward attending to the device to be taken in response to the request, the response attitude being estimated from the response track-record information (Zyto, see [0032], user can reject requested task).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Goodman in view of Zyto in order to further modify the method for notification indicating that an event has occurred from the teachings of Goodman with the method for coordinating tasks among a plurality of users from the teachings of Zyto.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because it would allow a service provider determine one or more contextual criteria for at least one task associated with at least one user (Zyto – Abstract).
As to claim 9, Goodman discloses everything disclosed in claim 8, but is silent to
wherein the processor is configured to estimate response attitudes of the possible responders toward attending to the device with reference to the number of times each of the possible responders accepts a request or the number of times each of the possible responders refuses a request. However, Zyto discloses wherein the processor is configured to estimate response attitudes of the possible responders toward attending to the device with reference to the number of times each of the possible responders accepts a request or the number of times each of the possible responders refuses a request (Zyto, see [0032], user can reject requested task).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Goodman in view of Zyto in order to further modify the method for notification indicating that an event has occurred from the teachings of Goodman with the method for coordinating tasks among a plurality of users from the teachings of Zyto.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because it would allow a service provider determine one or more contextual criteria for at least one task associated with at least one user (Zyto – Abstract).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TANIA M PENA-SANTANA whose telephone number is (571)270-0627. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8am to 4pm 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, Nicholas R Taylor can be reached at 5712723889. 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.
/TANIA M PENA-SANTANA/Examiner, Art Unit 2443
/NICHOLAS R TAYLOR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2443
Prosecution Insights