DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 October 30, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1, 9, and 23 have been amended. Claims 1-16 and 20-23 have been examined and are currently pending.
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 .
Inventorship
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Dependent claim 20 recites the limitation, “wherein the community activity data is further generated by the at least one device in the first time period using data generated at one or more of a home sensor, vehicle sensor or a wearable device sensor” is not supported within the applicant’s specification. The applicant’s specification discloses, “Community involvement relates to any number of civic and/or community activities that user 102 partakes in. For example, civic and/or community activities may include volunteering, voting, interacting with neighbors, participating in community or charitable events, accessing social media to discuss current events, and the like. Data associated with the civic and/or community activities of user 102 may be self-reported or collected through a mobile device (e.g., by retrieving calendar events stored in mobile device 104A). This data may be stored as community data 128 in database 124.” (paragraph 0037). Paragraph 0004 of the applicant’s specification discloses, “…receiving the first set of data during a first period of time from the plurality of devices associated with the user…” Finally, paragraph 0031 of the applicant’s specification discloses, “In some embodiments, devices 104A-104N may be in the form of smart home sensors and/or smart vehicle sensors. Smart home sensors may be located at a residence of user 102. For example, smart home sensors may include utility meter sensors that generate data associated with energy usage at the residence (e.g., water sensors, gas sensors, electricity sensors, etc.), smart appliance sensors that generate data associated with the operation of various appliances at the residence (e.g., sensors in a smart refrigerator that indicate temperature settings), and/or home automation sensors that generate data associated with the control and/or automation of the residence (e.g., light level settings, home alarm settings, thermostat settings, etc.). Smart vehicle sensors may be located in a vehicle associated with user 102. For example, smart vehicle sensors may include sensors that generate data associated with the physical and/or mental conditions of user 102 while driving the vehicle (e.g., sensors that measure eye movement, reaction time, etc.), and/or interactions that user 102 have with the vehicle (e.g., sensors that measure vehicle following distance, response to safety warning systems, etc.). In any event, these and other sensors may provide additional sources of data (including image and audio data) associated with user 102.” In particular, the specification does not support receiving community activity data from a home sensor and vehicle sensor. The specification does not support the limitation, “wherein the community activity data is further generated by the at least one device in the first time period using data generated at one or more of a home sensor, vehicle sensor”.
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 1-16 and 20-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
ALICE/ MAYO: TWO-PART ANALYSIS
2A. First, a determination whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea).
Prong 1: A determination whether the claim recites a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea).
Groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Mathematical concepts- mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations.
Certain methods of organizing human activity- fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).
Mental processes- concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion).
Prong 2: A determination whether the judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) is integrated into a practical application.
Considerations indicative of integration into a practical application enumerated in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Improvement to the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to any other technology or technical field
Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine.
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing
Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception
Considerations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application enumerated in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception.
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
2B. Second, a determination whether the claim provides an inventive concept (i.e., Whether the claim(s) include additional elements, or combinations of elements, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea)).
Considerations indicative of an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) enumerated in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Improvement to the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to any other technology or technical field
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine.
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing
Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception NOTE: The only consideration that does not overlap with the considerations indicative of integration into a practical application associated with step 2A: Prong 2.
Considerations that are not indicative of an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) enumerated in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception.
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. NOTE: The only consideration that does not overlap with the considerations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application associated with step 2A: Prong 2.
See also, 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance; Federal Register; Vol. 84, No. 4; Monday, January 7, 2019
Claims 1-16 and 20-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
1: Statutory Category
Applicant’s claimed invention, as described in independent claim 1 is directed to method and independent claim 9 is directed to a computer system.
2(A): The claim(s) are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea).
PRONG 1: The claim(s) recite a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea).
Mental processes
Independent claims 1 and 9 recite the limitations, “determining, by the computing device using the community activity data, a current community activity level; determining, by the computing device using the first data set, a current health level; determining, by the computing device whether a health goal and a community goal were met during the first time period based at least in part on the current health level and the current community activity level, wherein the community goal represents a quantity of community events in which the user has participated within the first time period; responding to determining that the health goal and the community goal were met by determining, by the computing device using a second data set associated with a second time period received from the at least one device, whether the health goal and the community goal were maintained during the second time period, the second data set indicating a continued health level and a continued community activity level based at least in part on continued community activity data generated by the at least one device in the second time period using the one or more sensors;” which are directed to the abstract idea of mental processes. Specifically, the limitations of determining whether a health goal and a community goal were met during a first time period and in response to the health goal and community goal being met, determining a health goal and community goal were maintained during a second time period can be performed by a human/person (in the human mind) through observation, evaluation, and judgment through the use of a computer or device. In particular, a user can evaluate and compare different sets of data of the health and community goals at different periods of time determine and judge whether the goals have been met through data being displayed on a computer or device.
Mathematical concepts
Independent claims 1 and 9 recite the limitations, “determining, by the computing device using the community activity data, a current community activity level; determining, by the computing device using the first data set, a current health level; determining, by the computing device whether a health goal and a community goal were met during the first time period based at least in part on the current health level and the current community activity level, wherein the community goal represents a quantity of community events in which the user has participated within the first time period; responding to determining that the health goal and the community goal were met by determining, by the computing device using a second data set associated with a second time period received from the at least one device, whether the health goal and the community goal were maintained during the second time period, the second data set indicating a continued health level and a continued community activity level based at least in part on continued community activity data generated by the at least one device in the second time period using the one or more sensors;” are directed to the abstract idea of mathematical concepts under mathematical relationships. In particular, a user can evaluate and compare different sets of numbers or numerical values to the health and community goals at different periods of time determine and judge whether the goals have been met.
Certain methods of organizing human activity
Independent claims 1 and 9 recite the limitations, “responding to determining that the health goal and the community goal were maintained by transmitting, by the computing device to the at least one device, information indicating at least one reward for the user;” and “respond to determining that the health goal and the community goal were maintained by causing the at least one device to present information indicating at least one reward for the user.” which are directed to the abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activity under commercial or legal obligations. Specifically, the limitation transmitting information regarding at least one reward to a user in response to meeting the health and community goals is a form of a contract and/or legal obligation. For instance, entity/party 1 performs a function (e.g., meets community and health goals) and entity/party 2 provides a reward or incentive to entity/party 1.
Certain methods of organizing human activity
Independent claims 1 and 9 recite the limitation, “determining, by the computing device using the community activity data, a current community activity level; determining, by the computing device using the first data set, a current health level; determining, by the computing device whether a health goal and a community goal were met during the first time period based at least in part on the current health level and the current community activity level, wherein the community goal represents a quantity of community events in which the user has participated within the first time period; responding to determining that the health goal and the community goal were met by determining, by the computing device using a second data set associated with a second time period received from the at least one device, whether the health goal and the community goal were maintained during the second time period, the second data set indicating a continued health level and a continued community activity level based at least in part on continued community activity data generated by the at least one device in the second time period using the one or more sensors; responding to determining that the health goal and the community goal were maintained by transmitting, by the computing device to the at least one device, information indicating at least one reward for the user; and causing, by the computing device, the at least one device to present the at least one reward to the user.” which are directed to the abstract idea of certain methods of managing personal behavior. Specifically, the limitations recite helping manage a user’s personal behavior through goal setting, goal implementation and execution and incentivizing goal completion.
PRONG 2: The judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) is not integrated into a practical application.
The applicant has not shown or demonstrated any of the requirements described above under "integration into a practical application" under step 2A. Specifically, the applicant's limitations are not "integrated into a practical application" because they are adding words "apply it" with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea merely as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Additionally, improvements to the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field has not been shown or disclosed (see MPEP 2106.05(a)). The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Specifically, the applicant’s limitations are not “significantly more” because they are adding words “apply it” with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea merely as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). The applicant’s claimed limitations do not demonstrate an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, effecting a transformation or reduction of particular article to a different state or thing. The current application does not amount to 'significantly more' than the abstract idea as described above. The claim does not include additional elements or limitations individually or in combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Specifically, the individual elements of a computing device, at least one device, and one or more sensors amount to no more than implementing an idea with a computerized system and they are adding words “apply it” with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea merely as a tool to perform an abstract idea. The additional elements taken in combination add nothing more than what is present when the elements are considered individually. Therefore, based on the two-part Alice Corp. analysis, there are no meaningful limitations in the claims that transform the exception (i.e., abstract idea) into a patent eligible application.
Since the claim(s) recite a judicial exception and fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the claim(s) is/are “directed to” the judicial exception. Thus, the claim(s) must be reviewed under the second step of the Alice/ Mayo analysis to determine whether the abstract idea has been applied in an eligible manner.
2(B): The claims do not provide an inventive concept (i.e., The claim(s) do not include additional elements, or combinations of elements, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea)).
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element(s) in the claim amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
For these reasons, there is no invention concept in the claim, and thus the claim is ineligible.
Dependent claims 2-8, 10-16, and 20-23 are rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 based on a rationale similar to the claims from which they depend.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
determining, by the computing device whether a health goal and a community goal were met during the first time period based at least in part on the current health level and the current community activity level, wherein the community goal represents a quantity of community events in which the user has participated within the first time period;
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed October 30, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
A. According to applicant’s argument on page 9 discloses, “Applicant respectfully contends that the independent claims, as amended herein, do not recite a patent-ineligible method of organizing human activity or managing personal behavior.” The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Certain methods of organizing human activity
Independent claims 1 and 9 recite the limitations, “responding to determining that the health goal and the community goal were maintained by transmitting, by the computing device to the at least one device, information indicating at least one reward for the user;” and “respond to determining that the health goal and the community goal were maintained by causing the at least one device to present information indicating at least one reward for the user.” which are directed to the abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activity under commercial or legal obligations. Specifically, the limitation transmitting information regarding at least one reward to a user in response to meeting the health and community goals is a form of a contract and/or legal obligation. For instance, entity/party 1 performs a function (e.g., meets community and health goals) and entity/party 2 provides a reward or incentive to entity/party 1.
Certain methods of organizing human activity
Independent claims 1 and 9 recite the limitation, “determining, by the computing device using the community activity data, a current community activity level; determining, by the computing device using the first data set, a current health level; determining, by the computing device whether a health goal and a community goal were met during the first time period based at least in part on the current health level and the current community activity level, wherein the community goal represents a quantity of community events in which the user has participated within the first time period; responding to determining that the health goal and the community goal were met by determining, by the computing device using a second data set associated with a second time period received from the at least one device, whether the health goal and the community goal were maintained during the second time period, the second data set indicating a continued health level and a continued community activity level based at least in part on continued community activity data generated by the at least one device in the second time period using the one or more sensors; responding to determining that the health goal and the community goal were maintained by transmitting, by the computing device to the at least one device, information indicating at least one reward for the user; and causing, by the computing device, the at least one device to present the at least one reward to the user.” which are directed to the abstract idea of certain methods of managing personal behavior. Specifically, the limitations recite helping manage a user’s personal behavior through goal setting, goal implementation and execution and incentivizing goal completion.
B. According to applicant’s argument on pages 11-13 of the remarks disclose, “Instead, the independent claims recite a process, performed by a computing device, for using data generated by sensors configured at a device to determine community activity data and health data for a user associated with the device. This community activity data and health data are then used by the computing device to determine whether a health goal and a community goal are met. In response to the computing device determining that the goals are met, the computing device determines whether further data received from the device associated with the user indicates that the goals were maintained. If so, the computing device transmits a reward to the device and causes the device to present the reward to the user. As discussed in the interview, these aspects recite an improvement to automated system for determining health and community activity-based rewards and automatically providing such rewards to users.”, “Even assuming, solely for the sake of argument, that the claims are directed to the judicial exception of abstract idea, the independent claims, as amended herein, are patent eligible because they recite additional elements that are “unconventional or otherwise more than what is well- understood, routine, conventional activity in the field.” 2019 PEG, Section II(B). Furthermore, Applicant respectfully asserts that the amended independent claims include limitations that reflect an improvement in the functioning of a sensor data-based reward generation system, in which case “the claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application and thus imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception.” Section III(A) of October Update…As discussed in the interview, the independent claims, as amended herein, by reciting systems and processes for automatically processing sensor data to generate rewards and present such rewards on a user device, these claims recite an improvement to the functioning of a computer and computer capabilities that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.” and “Therefore, the recited features of the amended independent claims meaningfully apply the abstract idea and hence integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (i.e., “the claim imposes meaningful limits on any recited judicial exception, and the claim would be eligible under the 2019 PEG at least at Step 2A Prong Two” (Section III(A) of October Update), because “the disclosure provides sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement” (Section III(B) of October Update)).” The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, determining whether a claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application, examiners should consider whether the claimed invention pertains to an improvement in the functioning of the computer itself or any other technology or technical field. Additionally, making this determination, examiners should determine whether there is a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention in the specification and the claim itself reflects the improvement in technology. The recited claims do not recite and reflect an improvement in the technology or technical field as required in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility. Specifically, the applicant cites improvements such as an automated system for determining health and community activity-based rewards and automatically providing rewards to users. These features are not recited within the body of independent claims 1 and 9. The examiner notes the specification and claims do not provide a technical explanation as to how the invention/computer, technical field, or other technology is improved with regards to an automated system for determining health and community activity-based rewards and automatically providing rewards to users. Additionally, the automating of steps or rewards within the claimed invention do not equate to an improvement to the system or invention.
The examiner notes the applicant has not provided an explanation of as to how the additional elements in the claim are “unconventional or other more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field.”
C. According to applicant’s argument on pages 11-12 of the remarks disclose, “Importantly, an August 2025 Memo (“Reminders on evaluating subject matter eligibility of claims under 35 U.S.C. 101” Memorandum issued August 4, 2025, to Technology Centers 2100, 2600, and 3600 (hereafter “August 2025 Memo”)) issued to several technology centers at the USPTO states as follows: “Examiners are reminded not to expand this grouping [mental process grouping] in a manner that encompasses claim limitations that cannot practically be performed in the human mind.” August 2025 Memo, page 2. Because the amended claims recite subject matter that is neither achievable by human intervention nor pertaining to economic, commercial, or legal practices, Applicant respectfully submits that the automated, sensor data-based reward generation systems and processes recited in the independent claims is not an abstract idea under Prong One of Step 2A in the Alice/Mayo test.” The examiner respectfully disagrees.
According to the August 2025 Memo (“Reminders on evaluating subject matter eligibility of claims under 35 U.S.C. 101), discloses, “Mental process grouping: The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that “can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper,” to be an abstract idea.7 The USPTO subject matter eligibility analysis follows this precedent and instructs examiners to determine that a claim recites a mental process when it contains limitation(s) that can practically be performed in the human mind, including, for example, observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions.” The examiner notes the collection of data (e.g., first data set and second data set) can be performed by a combination of one or more sensors, at least one device associated with a user, and computing device. Once the data is collected, a computer or device can provide the data to a user/human for further analysis, evaluation, and judgment with regards to a user’s current activity (e.g., health data and community data) to established user health goals and community goals. The analysis, evaluation, and judgment of a user’s activity to established goals can be performed by user/human in their mind or using pen and paper. Further, the claims are directed to the abstract ideas of mathematical concepts and certain methods of organizing human activity as described above.
112 Rejection
D. According to applicant’s argument on page 9 of the remarks discloses, “Claim 20 recites “wherein the community activity data is further generated by the at least one device in the first time period using data generated at one or more of a home sensor, vehicle sensor, or a wearable device sensor.” This subject matter is fully supported by the instant Specification. For example, para. [0041] of the instant Specification recites “[d]evices 104A-104N then collect the data associated with user 102 performing those activities and send the data to server 106 for storage and processing. Accordingly, server 106 receives a first set of data during a first period of time (e.g., initial 6 months), which includes... a first community data set 128A indicating a current community activity level for user 102...” Para. [0028] of the instant Specification recites “Ta] plurality of mobile and/or wearable ices 104A-104N may be associated with user 102.” Para. [0031] of the instant Specification recites “[i]n some embodiments, devices 104A-104N may be in the form of smart home sensors and/or smart vehicle sensors.” Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests reconsideration and withdrawal of the rejection of claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph.” The examiner respectfully disagrees.
The applicant’s cited paragraphs 0041, 0028, and 0031 do not disclose the limitation, “wherein the community activity data is further generated by the at least one device in the first time period using data generated at one or more of a home sensor, vehicle sensor or a wearable device sensor.” In particular, paragraph 0031 discloses, “In some embodiments, devices 104A-104N may be in the form of smart home sensors and/or smart vehicle sensors. Smart home sensors may be located at a residence of user 102. For example, smart home sensors may include utility meter sensors that generate data associated with energy usage at the residence (e.g., water sensors, gas sensors, electricity sensors, etc.), smart appliance sensors that generate data associated with the operation of various appliances at the residence (e.g., sensors in a smart refrigerator that indicate temperature settings), and/or home automation sensors that generate data associated with the control and/or automation of the residence (e.g., light level settings, home alarm settings, thermostat settings, etc.). Smart vehicle sensors may be located in a vehicle associated with user 102. For example, smart vehicle sensors may include sensors that generate data associated with the physical and/or mental conditions of user 102 while driving the vehicle (e.g., sensors that measure eye movement, reaction time, etc.), and/or interactions that user 102 have with the vehicle (e.g., sensors that measure vehicle following distance, response to safety warning systems, etc.). In any event, these and other sensors may provide additional sources of data (including image and audio data) associated with user 102.” Paragraph 0031 discloses functions of a home sensor include data associated with energy usage at a residence and vehicle sensor include data associated with a user’s mental and physical conditions while driving and parameters associated with a vehicle while driving. The recited home sensor and vehicle sensor do not generate community activity data at a first-time using calendar data as recited in the limitation. Therefore, the examiner maintains the rejection.
Claim 23 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, has been withdrawn.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW L HAMILTON whose telephone number is (571)270-1837. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9:30-5:30 pm 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, Marc Jimenez can be reached at (571)272-4530. 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.
/MATTHEW L HAMILTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3681