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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 July 29, 2025 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claim 1 has been amended and are hereby entered.
Claims 1-6 are pending and have been examined.
This action is made NON-FINAL.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 29, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The specification amendments have been entered due to Applicant's amendments. Thus, this particular objection has been withdrawn due to these reasons.
Amendments regarding the 112(a) rejection have been entered and Applicant arguments have been considered. Thus, this particular rejection has been withdrawn due to Applicant's amendments.
Regarding to applicant's arguments against the 101 rejection for claims 1-6 on page 21: Applicant’s arguments directed to Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B analysis were considered. However, these arguments are not persuasive and the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Because the claim limitations/steps are “commonly performed in computer processing using computer hardware”, as Applicant asserted, which is considered to performing these steps with a general-purpose computer that is further being used as a tool to perform the generic computer functions (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Because when evaluating the additional elements and computer components, these are recited at a high level of generality and the steps being performed by the computer are further describing and applying the abstract idea without placing any limits on how the technological components are being improved or improving a technical field. The recited claim language from the performing limitations is not distinct from functions that generic computer components can perform. Therefore, “to show that the involvement of a computer assists in improving the technology, the claims must recite the details regarding how a computer aids the method, the extent to which the computer aids the method, or the significance of a computer to the performance of the method. Merely adding generic computer components to perform the method is not sufficient. Thus, the claim must include more than mere instructions to perform the method on a generic component or machinery to qualify as an improvement to an existing technology”, which in this case, is database systems for providing life information (see ¶0002 from Applicant’s disclosure).
As for the Applicant argument that the claims don’t recite mental processes, the Examiner disagrees and find it unpersuasive. Because when considering the claims and its additional elements individually, and as a whole, these claim limitations still recite the abstract idea of a mental process even if they require at least one of: (B) physical aid (e.g. pen and paper) and/or (C) a computer (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(B & C)). In this case, the recited limitations for extracting and registering user’s life information data to select users that match characteristic data and transmit the data and its specified unsafe factors to the target users, can be done with the help of physical aid which does not negate the mental nature of the limitation(s), even when using other generic computer components. In other words, although these steps are implemented by a computer, the “[c]ourts have examined claims that required the use of a computer and still found that the underlying, patent-ineligible invention could be performed via pen and paper or in a person’s mind." Versata Dev. Group v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1335, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1702 (Fed. Cir. 2015). See also Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (‘‘[W]ith the exception of generic computer-implemented steps, there is nothing in the claims themselves that foreclose them from being performed by a human, mentally or with pen and paper.’’); Mortgage Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1324, 117 USPQ2d 1693, 1699 (Fed. Cir. 2016)”. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Thus, for these reasons stated above, the Examiner respectfully disagrees, and maintains 35 USC § 101 rejection for these pending claims.
Regarding the applicant's arguments of rejection under 35 USC § 103 for the pending claims on pages 21 – 22: Applicant’s argument regarding to “the accident prevention measures described in paragraph [0090] of Wang cannot anticipate or make obvious the "countermeasures" as recited in amended claim 1” because “present application uses this information to provide it in a more multifaceted manner” is not persuasive. Because such manner of providing “multi-faceted” information is not reflected (e.g. positively and actively recited while being actually supported by the Applicant’s disclosure) in the claim limitations recitation, rather the recitation is broad enough to still be satisfied by Wang in ¶0090, as well as in ¶0099 and ¶0125 from Wang.
As for the argument that “a person skill in the art would not be motivated from the disclosure of Wang, to arrive at the claimed invention” this is unpersuasive. Because the rationale to modify or combine the prior art does not have to be expressly stated in the prior art; the rationale may be expressly or impliedly contained in the prior art or it may be reasoned from knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art, established scientific principles, or legal precedent established by prior case law. (see MPEP 2144(I)). In this case, Wang’s system is satisfying the need of “alerting users to help them avoid or prevent traffic accidents” since “there are no mobile or web-based applications, or in-vehicle navigation systems that effectively inform the public so as to help reduce the potential for traffic accidents for various types of road users by getting them potentially life-saving information about possible dangerous locations or conditions” (see ¶0002 – 3; Wang). Similarly, Rowe’s system provides “means to safely report bullying incidents they may be victims of or may have witnessed” and quickly report the incident to the pertinent organizations to resolve them (¶0003; Rowe). Similarly, this analogous art can be implemented in other incident data “such as assaults, selling of drugs, and the like, may be reported. Also, although the description refers to bullying incidents occurring near or at a school, it should also be understood that the system 104 may be used to report incidents occurring in any other type of organization or institution” and can involve other “relevant authority, such as a police department, a safety group or system, or a consumer group” (¶0029; Rowe) which is a motivation to combine with the previous prior art of Wang. Therefore, for these reasons stated above, the Examiner respectfully disagrees, and maintains 35 USC § 103 rejection for these pending claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1 - 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Firstly, claim 1 represents, at Step 2A Prong 1, the abstract idea which is defined by the elements (e.g. steps) of:
…for transmitting information to specific users to be target persons for the information who are associated with target-person characteristics such as gender, date of birth and a residence area, the information being issued by information providing organizations including national and local governments, academic organizations and news organizations, …configured to transmit the information as life information which is classified into items of each of unsafe factors including illness, child abuse or a traffic accident harming safety of human life to the target persons, wherein the life information providing device comprising:
…in which the life information is registered and saved together with the characteristics of gender, the date of birth and a region of each of the target persons for the life information in such a way of classifying the unsafe factors through a wide range of fields, dividing the unsafe factors into the items and organizing the life information by each of the items, and in which previous life information has been registered and saved in advance, and countermeasures for each of the unsafe factors are collected and stored in the life information database;
…in which data of user characteristics is registered and saved, the user characteristics including name, gender, date of birth, residence area, and activity area of each of the users, as well as information related to a vaccination and a traffic safety course taken by each user,
…further receives new information issued by the information providing organizations as new life information;
specifies the item of the unsafe factor which causes the received new life information from the received new life information by dividing the items into any one of five risk levels which include immediate death level, lethality level, long- term rest level, short-term rest level and no rest required level;
registers the received new life information as the specified item of the unsafe factor into electronic data and additionally registering the electronic data…according to the specified item of the unsafe factor;
extracts target-person characteristics from the new life information;
registers the target-person characteristics extracted…as attached data of the new life information;
selects users who match the target-person characteristics extracted…; and
transmits the new life information to…each of the selected users, wherein the new life information and the previous life information of the specified unsafe factor are provided to the target users together with the registered user information without delay after issuing the life information or without failure to receive the life information; and
wherein the steps of receiving, specifying, registering, extraction, selection, determination and transmission are performed by computer hardware.
Generally, these limitations, describe a system for collecting and identifying user life information regarding unsafe factors (e.g. such as illness, child abuse (maltreatment), a traffic accident and the like harming safety of human life) to efficiently transmit the information to the pertaining/targeted users for safety purposes and to avoid life dangers. As disclosed in the specification in ¶0005, this invention allows “users to obtain the life information that is systematically organized, including the previous information”, “receive necessary information without delay and without failure to receive it” and avoid “danger to life” (see ¶0004). However, the abstract idea(s) of mental processes (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III) is recited in claim 1 in the form of observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion that can be performed mentally or in pen and paper. Specifically, the abstract idea is recited in the steps of “receives new information…as new life information”, “specifies the item of unsafe factor…”, “registers the received new life information” and “selects users who match the target-person characteristics extracted…” related to the users' life information to transmit life information to pertaining (e.g. matching) users (e.g. “targeted users” and their common characteristics) in order to avoid “danger of life”. Because receiving life information with unsafe factors specified that are further used to select users that match target-person characteristics extracted encompass at least evaluation, judgement and opinion.
Step 2A Prong 2: For independent claim 1, The judicial exception(s) or abstract idea previously identified is not integrated into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.04 (d)). The claims recite the additional element(s) of a life information providing device; a life information database; a registered user database, a terminal, and computer hardware. These additional elements, individually and in combination, and while considering the claims as a whole, are merely used as a tool to perform the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). These claim limitation or steps and these element features are recited as being performed by the computer. The computer is recited at a high level of generality that is being used as a tool to perform the generic computer functions of extracting and registering user’s life information data to select users that match characteristic data and transmit the data and its specified unsafe factors to the target users. Thus, these steps mentioned above are further describing and applying the abstract idea without placing any limits on how the technological components are being improved, while distinguishing in the claim language, the performing limitations from functions that generic computer components can perform.
As for the “receives”, “registers” and “transmits” steps in the claim(s) are really nothing more than links to computer implementing the use of ordinary capacity for implementing the use of ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components (refer to MPEP 2106.05 f (2)).
Therefore, this analysis is indicative of the fact that even when viewed in combination, the claims’ additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea or judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: For independent claim 1, these claims do not provide an inventive concept. The recited additional elements of the claim(s) are the following: a life information providing device; a life information database; a registered user database, a terminal, and computer hardware. These additional elements are not sufficient to amount significantly more than the judicial exception or abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05). Because, as indicated in Step 2A Prong 2, these additional element(s) claimed are merely, instructions to “apply” the abstract ideas, which cannot provide an inventive concept. Also, the recitation of a computer to perform the claim limitations amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Thus, even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, which do not provide an inventive concept at Step 2B.
For dependent claims 2-6, these claims cover or fall under the same abstract ideas of a method of organizing human activity and mental processes. They describe additional limitations steps of:
Claims 2 – 3 and 5: further describes the abstract idea of the provision of life information based on determining new life information being required, selecting new life information for new user characteristics and its data transmission. Thus, being directed to the abstract idea group of mental processes due to the required observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion to transmit data.
Claims 4 and 6: further describes the abstract idea of the provision of life information with the addition of consulting items requested by the user experiencing abuse or bullying and needs a consult, selecting the most suitable consult based on bullying type and location of damage to transmit the consultation request to the selected consultation counter which also encompass the abstract idea group of “commercial or legal interactions” for certain method of organizing human activity in the form of advertising a service. For purposes of further analysis, all limitation steps from the claims are considered together as a single abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B: For dependent claims 2 – 6, these claims do not include additional elements, but further instruct one to practice the abstract idea by using general computer components that merely are used as a tool. Thus, Therefore, these claim limitations amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components and or computing technologies (e.g. that are merely deployed to be used as a tool; see MPEP 2106.05 (f)).
Finally, the additional elements previously mentioned above, are nothing more than descriptive language about the elements that define the abstract idea, and these claims remain rejected under 101 as well.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wang (U.S. Pub No. 20180299284 A1).
Regarding claim 1:
Wang teaches:
A life information providing device for transmitting information to specific users to be target persons for the information who are associated with target-person characteristics including gender, date of birth and a residence area, the information being issued by information providing organizations including national and local governments, academic organizations and news organizations, the life information providing device being configured to transmit the information as life information which is classified into items of each of unsafe factors including illness, child abuse or a traffic accident harming safety of human life to the target persons, wherein the life information providing device comprising: (In ¶0047; Fig. 1: teaches a system that can “assist a user in avoiding an accident by alerting the user of the potential danger through notifications based on accident data analyses and the user's current location”.)
a life information database in which the life information is registered and saved together with the characteristics of gender, the date of birth and a region of each of the target persons for the life information in such a way of classifying the unsafe factors through a wide range of fields, dividing the unsafe factors into the items and organizing the life information by each of the items, and in which previous life information has been registered and saved in advance, (In ¶0061; Fig. 1 (101): teaches a database that stores “historical traffic accident information, the user's present, identified or designated location, the present, identified or designated time, administrative notices or temporary notices applicable to the user type of that user, etc.”. See ¶0059 for more details of the information stored and refer to ¶0089 wherein the database can store “traffic accident relevant data may include a variety of sub-data, such as geolocations, reasons, time and date of the accident, category of accident, number of vehicles and people involved, such as age, gender, etc.” (see ¶0087 also for database’s data categorization related to user types). Finally, in ¶0079, the system “may use database 101 or a set of databases (or data storage media)” which is directed to both the life information database and the registered user database that can include “multiple types of data corresponding to multiple types of users, or one type of data corresponding to multiple types of users, or multiple types of data corresponding to one type of user”.)
and countermeasures for each of the unsafe factors are collected and stored in the life information database; (In ¶0090; Fig. 1 (101): teaches that the “system administrator, employees, or third-party contractors may be hired to search, gather, and input accident information from these various sources into database 101” including the source of “Websites created by communities or interested individuals may also contain relevant accident and accident prevention information” wherein this type of preventive information directed to countermeasures can be “assembled and summarized by a system administrator or employee to supplement database 101” for the unsafe factors stored/collected, in accordance to ¶0021 from Applicant’s disclosure. Refer to ¶0099 and ¶0125 wherein “the traffic accident relevant data may be analyzed according to statistical measures (i.e., measures of central tendency, mean, median, mode, etc.) of various accident related factors to identify at least trends or factors for causes of traffic accidents, which may be further analyzed to infer relevancy to an age, a specific age group, a time frame, a time of day, a day of week, a day of month, a day or time of year, a weather condition, etc.”. But also, to consider “accident causes”. See ¶0142 for an example related to “reasons for the occurrence of a previous accident or for any dangerous conditions for a location and/or recommendations for how to avoid potential accidents for the location” given through “UEP 115”.)
a registered user database in which data of user characteristics is registered and saved, the user characteristics including name, gender, date of birth, a residence area, and activity area of each of the users, as well as information related to a vaccination and a traffic safety course taken by each user, (In ¶0105; Fig. 1 (101): teaches in ¶0098 “raw data” entered to the system can include “inexperienced drivers” and any other “reasons or causes” of an accident occurred and in ¶0105 the system can “account for a user's driving history, such as experience level, age, number of prior traffic accidents, etc.” which is directed to obtaining traffic safety courses taken by each user.)
the life information providing device further receives new information issued by the information providing organizations as new life information; (In ¶0091: teaches that “locations from government accident data may be converted to geolocation coordinates through various third-party software, and then input into database 101” in order to provide “up-to-date real-time or close to real-time traffic accident information” that can be “quickly shared with other users”. Refer to ¶0080, ¶0110 and ¶0121 – 122 for more information updates.)
specifies the item of the unsafe factor which causes the received new life information from the received new life information by dividing the items into any one of five risk levels which include immediate death level, lethality level, long- term rest level, short-term rest level and no rest required level; (In ¶0094: teaches that data collected by the system may include “various parameters, for example general information such as date, time, person involved in an accident, classification of the accident, such as fatal, serious, minor, etc.” which is directed to the five risk levels claimed. Also, in ¶0118, the “system may utilize different formats such as colors, shading, patterns, etc. to indicate and/or differentiate certain information/data” wherein “circle's color, or different format, may change depending on the volume of accident data and/or risk level available for the route that the user is moving through”)
registers the received new life information as the specified item of the unsafe factor into electronic data and additionally registering the electronic data in the life information database according to the specified item of the unsafe factor; (In ¶0097: teaches that “to build database 101, raw accident data may be obtained from informational sources that may be uploaded to a computer microprocessor and formatted to include only relevant information needed for running analyses and providing notifications relating to the avoidance of potential traffic accidents.” Refer to ¶0098 for more “raw data” details. See ¶0090 wherein preventive information directed to countermeasures can be “assembled and summarized by a system administrator or employee to supplement database 101” for the unsafe factors stored/collected.)
extracts target-person characteristics from the new life information; (In ¶0097: teaches that “once all accident data has been cleaned, the address data may be extracted in a data frame to be used in a third-party geocode API to output a .csv file with all the geocoding information of locations relative to each accident”.)
registers the target-person characteristics extracted in the life information database as attached data of the new life information; (In ¶0119: teaches “A potential user may be asked to register with the service by providing driver's license information which includes his/her name, contact information, mailing and/or billing address, plate information, type of vehicle, the state/country issuing the driver license to create a user ID on the mobile application, etc.” including more specific information from the user as requested by the system. Finally, the system may include a “user profile database configured to store user information and associations between each user and his/her mobile device after registration”.)
selects users who match the target-person characteristics extracted from the registered user database; and (In ¶0083: teaches that “historical weather data 346 may be used in conjunction with real-time weather data 348 to determine if a notification is to be sent to users whose current location indicates that the user may be subject to weather-related accident advisories to help avoid any potential accident due to the same or similar weather conditions”. Also, in ¶0133 the system can “analyze and cross-correlate the time and location of users with the time and location of accidents to alert the user about accident prone locations, according to the user type, by receiving user data and retrieving accident specific information (Step 414) from database 101 and determining a user type of the user (Step 416) from the user data”)
transmits the new life information to a terminal of each of the selected users, wherein the new life information and the previous life information of the specified unsafe factor are provided to the target users together with the registered user information without delay after issuing the life information or without failure to receive the life information; and (In ¶0103; Fig. 6 (607): teaches an example wherein “a direct correlation” can occur “when a non-commercial vehicle user is provided with a notification that warns of potential traffic accidents at Location X at 5:15 PM on a Tuesday because there is data in database 101 which matches the situation (e.g., a non-commercial vehicle being involved in a traffic accident at Location X at 5:15 PM on a previous Tuesday, a plurality of directly matching data points—type of user, type of vehicle, location, time, etc.—all correlate directly (i.e., are identical or nearly identical)).” Refer to ¶0111 for more notification details and to ¶0138 for method steps for step 607.)
wherein the steps of receiving, specifying, registering, extraction, selection, determination and transmission are performed by computer hardware. (In ¶0054 Fig. 1 and Fig. 4A: teaches that “the computer-implemented system according to an exemplary embodiment of the inventive disclosure for mapping and storing traffic accident information and data, and for alerting a user to the potential for traffic accidents in order to help them avoid or prevent such traffic accidents” as shown in at least the method of Fig. 4A flowchart. Also, in ¶0097 the “raw accident data may be obtained from informational sources that may be uploaded to a computer microprocessor and formatted to include only relevant information needed for running analyses and providing notifications relating to the avoidance of potential traffic accidents”.)
Regarding claim 2:
Wang, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1.
Wang further teaches:
the life information providing device further determines whether or not it is necessary to provide new life information corresponding to a new user characteristic when the user characteristics change due to, an increase in the age of the registered users; (In ¶0047: teaches that the “invention may assist a user in avoiding an accident by alerting the user of the potential danger through notifications based on accident data analyses and the user's current location”. Also, the provision of new life information based on the change of increasing age of a registered user is taught by the prior art since the system can predict by inferencing “a potential traffic accident at the location”, “prior traffic accidents occurred during a time frame which includes the designated time” and based on “individuals involved in the accident at the location” and their “age” (see ¶0025). See ¶0098 – 100 wherein the processed raw data can include “reasons for accidents” based on “age of drivers or people involved” which are used by the system to “generate applicable alerts for the users at the specific location” (directed to selecting the new life information based on the new user characteristic as it is determined that a need exist for the life information provision) which can further identify “trends or factors for causes of traffic accidents, which may be further analyzed to infer relevancy to an age, a specific age group”.)
selects the new life information corresponding to the new user characteristic from the life information database, when it is determined that the new life information needs to be provided; and transmits the selected new life information to the terminal of each of the target users at an appropriate time. (In ¶0121: teaches that the system can track, select and notify users of “any new reports of accidents” based on “where they may be traveling to or where they are located” and what saved searches the user did (Also, refer to ¶0123 for more details). Refer to ¶0115 for an example of notifications based on user’s attributes, wherein the notifications are directed to tasks that must be performed by the user before a forecasted snowstorm and the weather conditions reported to “minimize, avoid or prevent future accidents” and to ¶0132 – 133 for determining and verifying data based on ratings before sending the data to the user as notification updates for data accuracy, relevance and validation purposes.)
Regarding claims 3 and 5:
Wang, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claims 1 and 2, respectively.
Wang further teaches:
the life information providing device further receives information which includes the user characteristics including the gender and the date of birth of a target user who uses the life information and an item of the life information requested by the user, such that when the user wants to newly obtain the life information of domestic or overseas visits, the user can receive the requested information by inputting and transmitting a request to the life information providing device; (In ¶0085: teaches that the user can “access historical records, explore database 101, and retrieve related data from a search function or other means” by “input or request from a user who wants to see related information” through relationship between data tables or “key-value pairs” inputted in a “query” that “finds the specific data by using keys that the query provides” which satisfies the conditional limitation claimed of obtaining information of domestic or overseas visits.)
extracts related life information from the life information database based on the received item of the life information; (In ¶0059: teaches “when the correct conditions are met (e.g., the user approaches a potentially dangerous location or manually requests information), computing system 100 can query database 101 for relevant traffic accident related data stored in database 101” which is directed to extracting or retrieving related life information from the life information database. Also, refer to ¶0089 and ¶0145 for other life information directed to “reasons/recommendation” for a particular traffic accident location that the user can choose to rate based on the pertaining crowdsourced data that the system displayed to inform the user which can include “accident related information” based on ages.)
selects applicable life information from the extracted life information according to the requested user characteristics such as the gender and the age of the target user; and (In ¶0098 – 99: teaches that processed “raw data” can include “reasons for accidents” based on “age of drivers or people involved” which are used by the system to “generate applicable alerts for the users at the specific location” (directed to selecting the new life information based on the new user characteristic as it is determined that a need exist for the life information provision) which can further identify “trends or factors for causes of traffic accidents, which may be further analyzed to infer relevancy to an age, a specific age group”. Lastly, in ¶0100, the system “may also collect and analyze all relevant users' information, including but not limited to gender, age, education, ethnicity, occupation, etc., which may be used for statistical purposes, for example, to infer information about which types of accidents are relevant to a specific age group, ethnicity, time of the day, day of the month, etc.”. This way, this information can be used as “statistical analyses of incidences of accidents based on characteristics such as gender” to “infer or predict potential accidents for users having the same or similar characteristics” (see ¶0117 for more details of statistics user to infer data and predict potential accidents.))
transmits the selected life information to the terminal of the target user who requests the life information. (In ¶0148; Fig. 10: teaches the display of a notification based on “a location the user requests to view” with a “predetermined distance away (e.g., 20 meters, 50 meters, etc.)” (directed to a user characteristic) and the notification may include “electronic or digital map display 1002 of the relevant location and suggestion(s) (or recommendation(s)) 1004 to help the user proceed safely through the intersection”.)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claims 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (U.S. Pub No. 20180299284 A1) in view of Rowe (CA Pub No. 2930481 A1).
Regarding claims 4 and 6:
Wang, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claims 1 and 2, respectively.
Wang teaches that the system “may use a third-party service and/or API, or the system administrator may hire professionals to translate the content” (e.g. accident-related information including extensive information and notifications; see ¶0130; Wang) to “different languages or provide explanations in plain English” (see ¶0131; Wang). But Wang does not explicitly teach the abilities of receiving information of consultation items based on a user request, specifically when the user is abused or bullied in order to select most suitable consultation counter and transmitting a consultation request. Thus, Rowe which is an analogous prior art concerned with reporting and tracking incident data, specifically for “bullying incidents” (see ¶0028; Rowe) teaches:
the life information providing device further receives information of consultation items (type of bullying, location of damage, situation of damage, a consultation area and time zone) requested by a user, such that when the user is abused or bullied and wants to consult with a consultation counter, the user can receive the requested information by inputting and transmitting a request to the life information providing device; (In ¶0041; Fig. 3b (218 – 224 and 230); Fig. 3c (238 – 242 and 246); Fig. 4 (306); Fig. 5b; Fig. 6: teaches that the system can receive user input with “additional details about the bullying event, such as the name(s) of the perpetrator(s) of the incident, i.e the bully, and victim name(s), if known” and “comments about the incident may also be provided and attached to the captured media file(s)” (see ¶0039). But also, will prompt the user to specify “appointment data” such as “preferred time and location for the appointment” upon requesting an “appointment request” to meet the “guidance counsellor” of a particular school (see ¶0041).)
selects the an available and a nearest consultation counter based on the type of bullying and the location of damage in the received information; and (In ¶0046; Fig. 3c (238 – 242 and 246); Fig. 8; Fig. 9a: teaches that the system’ “institution notification module 132 is therefore able to find the school whose location is the closest to that of the device 102R” by comparing “the location of the device 102R to that of the schools listed in the databases 116 and determine which school is within a predetermined distance of the device 102R” which is indicated as a school with a “a preferred or highest priority school to which all future incident data received from the device 102R are to be routed”.)
transmits a consultation request to the selected consultation counter. (In ¶0047; Fig. 3d (254); Fig. 9c: teaches “institution notification module 132 may then transmit the incident data to the output module 126 so the latter may format the data for transmission to the identified school”.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wang to provide the abilities of receiving information of consultation items based on a user request, specifically when the user is abused or bullied in order to select most suitable consultation counter and transmitting a consultation request, as taught by Rowe in order to provide “means to safely report bullying incidents they may be victims of or may have witnessed” and quickly report the incident to the pertinent organizations to resolve them (¶0003; Rowe). Similarly, this analogous art can be implemented in other incident data “such as assaults, selling of drugs, and the like, may be reported. Also, although the description refers to bullying incidents occurring near or at a school, it should also be understood that the system 104 may be used to report incidents occurring in any other type of organization or institution” and can involve other “relevant authority, such as a police department, a safety group or system, or a consumer group” (¶0029; Rowe) which is a motivation to combine with the previous prior art of Wang.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Fey (U.S. Pub No. 20030187688 A1) is pertinent because it is “relates to health data management. Specifically, the invention relates to a system and method for collecting screening, diagnostic, and demographic data from clients, processing and analyzing health data from health risk assessments and screening tests, generating custom reports, maintaining heath data, pre-populating data into user accessible personal health records and aggregate data for scientific research and clinical studies.”
Tschiegg (U.S. Pub No. 20050192963 A1) is pertinent because it is about “a graphical and interactive interface system manages risk management information. A secure database stores risk management information that is accessible by authorized access through a network. A graphics interface generates graphic data of the risk management information in response to the authorized access. One or more workflow process terminals connect in network with the database to provide updates to the risk management information. Summary reporting and statistical processing functionalities facilitate predictive accuracy of the system by permitting a user to compare relevant system inputs when selecting data to provide recommendations to customers for adjustment of insurance policies in accordance with risk management practices.”
Kucharski (U.S. Pub No. 20230370548 A1) is pertinent because it is “a technical process for prompting a user to report a public-safety incident, wherein the process employs electronic sensor devices to detect an occurrence of a potential public-safety incident and to further identify a time window while taking into consideration unique circumstances such as safety, privacy, health etc., of a user who witnessed the incident in order to prompt the user to report the incident during the identified time window”.
Kim (U.S. Pub No. 20170186307 A1) is pertinent because it “relates to personal protection service system and method, in more details, it is related to personal protection service system and method using application of smart mobile device, portable device or wearable device. In case of emergency, user in danger or disaster is connected to guardian or institution linked to social safety network in order to manage quickly in a short time by requesting for individual safety guard service with smart mobile device carried by the user.”
Ferguson (U.S. Pub No. 20110111728 A1) is pertinent because it “relates to systems and methods for providing a conduit to send information to emergency services from a wireless device, and, more particularly, to systems and methods for registering an alarm button on a wireless device and sending to public and/or private emergency services providers information related to the wireless device including its location, information about a wireless device end user and/or subscriber associated with the wireless device, and information recorded by one or more wireless devices during and subsequent to the time the alarm button is activated.”
Amis (U.S. Pub No. 20110046920 A1) is pertinent because it “relates generally to the field of determining the safety/threat level of an individual, providing a host of capabilities, systems, procedures and technology to improve that safety level or address specific threats, to an algorithm that receives information from various sources, including the user, to determine and manage their safety level, and to a remote monitoring center which provides active support not only for managing user safety and specific threats, but also for emergency and non-emergency response during pre-incident, incident, incident respite, and post incident situations.”
Horvitz (U.S. Pub No. 20100332131 A1) is pertinent because it “allow a user to be alerted/notified when they are or plan to be in a location that may not meet a preferred risk level (e.g., a level of tolerance for particular risks, such as accident rates on a road segment)”.
Piett (U.S. Pub No. 20100262668 A1) is pertinent because it is “a method for providing user data to an emergency service provider includes enrolling a user in an emergency information system, including configuring a communication device associated with the user to deliver an access identifier to an emergency service provider when the user contacts the emergency service provider using the communication device.”
Romero (U.S. Pub No. 20140057590 A1) is pertinent because it “relates generally to crime prevention and improved information sharing with law enforcement and, more particularly, to a method and system for communicating information associated with an incident to a designated government public safety agency. The invention may also relate to improved emergency communication systems and methods.”
Brown (U.S. Pub No. 20190066481 A1) is pertinent because it “relates to the field of warning systems, and, more particularly, to a system and method to provide emergency alerts and related methods.”
Meyer (U.S. Pub No. 20050182722 A1) is pertinent because it “relates to a system and methods for risk management; more particularly, the present invention relates to a system and methods for assessing and mitigating risk associated with one or more assets.”
Abreu (U.S. Pub No. 20010056359 A1) is pertinent because it “relates to a system and method for communicating product recall information, product warnings, or other product-related information to users of such products, and more specifically, relates to a system and method that facilitate implementation of an electronic and network-based recall and notification system that is product-driven and/or biological variable-driven, to assist the users of the system in timely identifying a health hazard or any other hazardous situation or difficulties due to unintended harmful effects and adverse consequences of a variety of products and/or biological variables, and to prevent the occurrence of such harmful effects.”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ivonnemary Rivera Gonzalez whose telephone number is (571)272-6158. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:00AM - 5:30PM.
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, Nathan Uber can be reached at (571) 270-3923. 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.
/IVONNEMARY RIVERA GONZALEZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3626
/NATHAN C UBER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3626