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 .
Request for Continued Examination
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 9/24/2025 has been entered.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, U.S. Provisional Application No. 63/302,926 by Bellman et al., entitled "PUSH NOTIFICATIONS AND ADDRESS RISKING," filed January 25, 2022; U.S. Patent Application No. 17/824,688 by Burke et al., published as U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0383323 Al, entitled "FRAUD DETECTION SYSTEMS AND METHODS," filed May 25, 2022, which claims the benefit of U.S. Provisional Application No. 63/192,979 by Burket et al., entitled "FRAUD DETECTION SYSTEMS AND METHODS," filed May 25, 2021; all fail to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application.
Therefore, the amended claims of this application (18/100,986) will be given the priority date of 1/24/2023, and examined as such below.
Status of Claims
Claims 9, 10, and 18 have been cancelled, and Claim 23 has been added as new; therefore, Claims 1-8, 11-17, and 19-23 are currently pending in application 18/100,986.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-8, 11-17, and 19-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by deCharms (US 2014/0368601 A1).
As per independent Claims 1, 12, and 20, deCharms discloses a computer-implemented method/ system/ programmed apparatus of transmitting a safety notification using one or more processors (See at least Figs.1-2, 7-8; Para 0260; Claims 1, 13, and 19), comprising:
instructing, by a computer system to a first electronic device, to display on an interface of the first electronic device setting options to display the safety notification; determining, by the computer system, a user input on the interface selecting a notification option (See at least Figs. 7, 18A-18B, User system/method registration; Para 0150 and Para 0232);
receiving, by the computer system, session information associated with a data transfer session of the first electronic device transferring data with a second electronic device*; determining, by the computer system, based at least in part on the session information, a location of the first electronic device associated with a user (See at least Para 0280, “In one example, a user (calling user) can send a message including a URL link through a messaging platform (email, SMS, Facebook, others) to a responder. This URL link can contain information specifying the sender, or the sender and responder, or the sender, responder. The URL link can also optionally include additional information, including information about the kind of communication being requested, the nature of the situation or topic of communication, the means of communicating, the locations of one or both users, encryption information (for example including a public key), or other information.”);
receiving, by the computer system, event data including an event location of an event and a severity of the event (See at least Para 0284, “Risk levels indicating the level of severity of the events can be provided with the news alerts. For example, news of a tornado around the current location of a user can be accompanied by a "high" risk level indicating that the event (tornado) posed a great risk to the health and well-being of people nearby. In another example, news of a thunderstorm with the chance to cause minor flooding can be accompanied with a "low" risk level indicating that the event (thunderstorm) posed a low risk to the health and well-being of people nearby. Risk levels can be determined manually and/or automatically, such as through keyword and/or phrase analysis, and/or natural language processing to match news alerts to predetermined event types each with one or more associated risk levels.”);
determining, by the computer system, a threshold distance from the event location based at least in part on at least one of the severity of the event (Threat Level) or the notification option; determining, by the computer system, whether the first electronic device is within the threshold distance from the event location; and where the location is within the threshold distance, transmitting, by the computer system to the first electronic device, the safety notification regarding the event (See at least Para 0260, “Additional and/or alternative data sources can be used to provide geotargeted alerts to users who are located within one or more relevant geographic locations. For example, data sources providing information about emergencies (e.g., national emergency monitoring system) and/or weather-related events (e.g., weather/meteorological systems) can be accessed or can push information to this system and, when an event with at least a threshold predicted or occurring level of severity is identified, users that are located inside or within a selected distance from the affected area can receive an alert (e.g., message, recorded message, push notification) to inform them of the event, and people whom they have designated (for example their friends) can also receive a notification.”).
As per Claims 2 (1) and 13 (12), deCharms discloses wherein the event comprises one of a crime, traffic, emergency, or weather (See at least Para 0191-0196, Para 0260).
As per Claims 3-8 and 14-19, all of the claims depend on either Claim 2 or Claim 13 respectively, and under Broad Reasonable Interpretation (BRI) of claims 2 and 13, either traffic, emergency, and/or weather are selected as the event disclosed in the method/ system (See at least Para 0282). Therefore, the sited prior art of deCharms reads on the invention as disclosed by Applicant in Claims 3-11 and 14-19.
As per Claims 3 (2) and 14 (13), deCharms discloses wherein the event comprises a crime, the event data comprises crime data, and the event location comprises a crime location (See at least Para 0191-0196).
As per Claims 4 (1) and 15 (12), deCharms discloses wherein the session information includes geolocation data (See at least Para 0280).
As per Claim 5 (3), deCharms discloses wherein the crime data is received from a public database (See at least Para 0147-0148; See also Para 0191-0196, Para 0247).
As per Claims 6 (3) and 16 (14), deCharms discloses wherein the safety notification comprises at least one of a distance, a type of crime, recommended safety precaution, or elapsed time since the crime (See at least Para 0191-0196, Para 0260, Para 0284).
As per Claim 7 (3), deCharms discloses determining a distance between the crime location and the location; and wherein transmitting the safety notification is based at least in part on the distance being less than the threshold distance (See at least Para 0191-0196, Para 0260, Para 0284).
As per Claim 8 (7), Ding discloses wherein the threshold distance is based at least in part on at least one of a type or severity of crime of the crime (See at least Para 0191-0196, Para 0260, Para 0284).
As per Claim 17 (14), deCharms discloses wherein: the memory comprises additional computer-executable instructions and the processor is further configured to determine a distance between the crime location and the location; transmitting the safety notification is based at least in part on the distance being less than the threshold distance; and the threshold distance is based at least in part on at least one of a type and severity of crime of the crime (See at least Para 0191-0196, Para 0260, Para 0284).
As per Claim 19 (14), deCharms discloses wherein the crime data comprises a time of the crime; the memory comprises additional computer-executable instructions and the processor is further configured to: determine a period of time between determining the location and the time of the crime; and transmit the safety notification comprises transmitting the safety notification when the period of time is less than a threshold period of time (See at least Para 0194).
As per Claim 21 (1), deCharms discloses wherein the event data includes an event time of the event and determining the location of the first electronic device includes determining a present time, and the method further comprises determining whether the time of the event and the present time is within a threshold period of time, wherein transmitting the safety notification includes transmitting the safety notification when the present time is within the threshold period of time (See at least Para 0194, “The central computer system 802 receives the incident report (814). The central computer server system 802 can provide security alerts to other users based on the incident report, as indicated by steps 815a-c. For example, the computer server system 802 can identify other users to whom the incident may be relevant and/or important (815a), such as users who are currently or are likely in the future (e.g., within a threshold period of time) to be located near where the incident occurred and/or users who are part of a group of predefined users who are identified to receive such reports (e.g., emergency responders, friends of the first user).”).
As per Claims 11 (21), deCharms discloses wherein: the location is based at least part on an interaction involving the entity; and the threshold period of time is based at least in part on at least one of a type or pattern of the interaction (See at least Para 0194).
As per Claim 22 (21), deCharms discloses determining the threshold period of time based on the severity of the event (See at least Para 0194, Para 0284).
As per new Claim 23 (1), deCharms discloses wherein the session information includes location information provided as an input in the data transfer session (See at least Para 0280).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 9/24/2025, with respect to Claims 1-8, 11-17, and 19-23, have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the references being used in the current rejection. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. The rejection will remain as NON-FINAL, based on the new rejections above. See MPEP § 706.07(a).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN P OUELLETTE whose telephone number is (571)272-6807. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8am-6pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Lynda C Jasmin, can be reached at telephone number (571) 272-6782. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
December 27, 2025
/JONATHAN P OUELLETTE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3629