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 .
This office action is in response to communication filed on 04/20/2023.
Claims 1-11 present for examination.
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 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because these claims are directed to software per se. Based on claim 1 construes as “a multi-unit building communication network” rather “the method”, the claim is view as “a multi-unit building communication network”. Referring to claims 1-11, claim 1 recites the limitation, a multi-unit building communication network comprises a software application, which directs the claim to software per se.
Claim Objections
Claims 3, 5, and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3, line 4, “sub-category” should read “the sub-category”;
Claim 3, line 5, “a same sub-category and category assignment” should read “a same sub-category assignment and a same category assignment”;
Claim 5, line 4, “second building” should read “the second building”;
Claim 10, line 5, delete/define “that”;
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, claim limitation recites “a multi-unit building communication network and method” in line 1, which renders the claim vague and indefinite. It is unclear whether the claim is “a multi-unit building communication network” or “a method for multi-unit building communication network”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the building" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 1, claim limitation recites “wherein the” in line 3, which renders the claim vague and indefinite. It is unclear what “the” is referring to.
Regarding claim 1, claim limitation recites “the building” in line 10, which renders the claim vague and indefinite. It is unclear whether “the building” is referring to “at least one building” in claim 1, line 2, or “the building” in claim 1, line 3, or to “a building” in claim 1, lines 9-10, or to a different/distinct building.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the data parameters input" in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 1, claim limitation recites “the building” in line 15, which renders the claim vague and indefinite. It is unclear whether “the building” is referring to “at least one building” in claim 1, line 2, or “the building” in claim 1, line 3, or to “a building” in claim 1, lines 9-10, or to a different/distinct building.
Regarding claim 1, claim limitation recites “the users” in line 15, which renders the claim vague and indefinite. It is unclear whether “the users” is referring to “users” in claim 1, line 2, or to “user” in claim 1, line 4, or to “a multitude of users” in claim 1, line 6, or to different/distinct users.
Regarding claim 1, claim limitation recites “the users” in line 17, which renders the claim vague and indefinite. It is unclear whether “the users” is referring to “users” in claim 1, line 2, or to “user” in claim 1, line 4, or to “a multitude of users” in claim 1, line 6, or to different/distinct users.
Regarding claim 1, claim limitation recites “the building” in line 17, which renders the claim vague and indefinite. It is unclear whether “the building” is referring to “at least one building” in claim 1, line 2, or “the building” in claim 1, line 3, or to “a building” in claim 1, lines 9-10, or to a different/distinct building.
Regarding claim 1, claim limitation recites “the users” in line 20, which renders the claim vague and indefinite. It is unclear whether “the users” is referring to “users” in claim 1, line 2, or to “user” in claim 1, line 4, or to “a multitude of users” in claim 1, line 6, or to different/distinct users.
Regarding claim 1, claim limitation recites “it” in line 27, which renders the claim vague and indefinite. It is unclear what “it” is referring to.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the physical address of the multi-unit building" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the software" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 5, claim limitation recites “comparing data from a first building to a second building” in lines 3-4, which renders the claim vague and indefinite. It is unclear what is data from a first building comparing to.
Regarding claim 5, claim limitation recites “to identify differences therebetween” in line 5, which renders claim vague and indefinite. It is impossible to compare data with only one data that is collected and identify differences. It is unclear what differences are being identified.
Regarding Claim 7, claim limitation recites “but between just two buildings at a time” in line 5, which renders the claim vague and indefinite. It is unclear what is between just two buildings at a time.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the sub-category of the user making the request" in lines 5-6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “the same sub-category” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the list of privileges and restrictions" in lines 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 11, claim limitation recites “the user groups” in line 3, which renders the claim vague and indefinite. It is unclear whether “the user groups” is referring to “user groups” in claim 3, line 3, or to “user groups” in claim 3, lines 4-5, or to different/distinct user groups.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “the physical address of a building” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
All dependent claims are rejected as having the same deficiencies as the claims they depend from.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tolia et al. (US 2019/0004685 A1), hereinafter Tolia, in view of Shaffer et al. (US 2015/0170152 A1), hereinafter Shaffer.
Regarding claim 1, Tolia discloses
A multi-unit building communication network and method configured to facilitate communication between users affiliated with at least one building and at least one role in the building wherein the:
a software application (internet access application 108, FIG. 1) is published so as to be accessible by users through computing devices (user device 104, FIG. 1) at any time ([0053]: user connects to the application server; the user can use internet access application running on user device to connect via communication network to the application server);
logging into the software application, wherein a multitude of users log into the software application to engage in use thereof ([0053]: user connects to the application server; the user can use internet access application running on user device to connect via communication network to the application server);
creating an account, wherein each of the multitude of users creates an account ([0054]: create a new account for the user), wherein account creation includes input of data parameters pertaining to a building and an identity of an affiliation with the building ([0054]: the user can provide to the application server his or her personal information, such as a full name, address, username, password, etc.; the user is required to disclose the user’s physical address, including, for example, house and apartment number, street name, city/town name, state name, zip code, and/or country name, etc.);
verifying the data parameters, wherein the software application executes verification of the data parameters input for each of the multitude of users ([0055]: the application can verify the provided address; & [0057]: the application server can verify the user’s address by first verifying the user’s real name, for example, by asking the user to log into an existing online account that is likely to be associated with the user’s real name; after verifying the user’s real name, the application server can check, using the database, that the name is associated with the provided address);
assigning a category to each of the multitude of users, wherein a category assignment is assigned to each of the multitude of users and is operable to identify the building with which the users are affiliated ([0050]: a user is assigned to a particular neighborhood based on the user’s place of residence, as defined, for example, by an address or by the spatial coordinates of the user’s home);
assigning a sub-category to each of the multitude of users, wherein the sub-category is operable to define a role of the users with respect to the building ([0069}: each neighborhood has at least one of its users designated as the neighborhood’s moderator, or “lead.”; the user who creates a neighborhood is automatically designated as a moderator of that neighborhood);
assigning communication privileges and restrictions to each of the multitude of users, wherein the software application assigns the communication privileges and restrictions based on the category and sub-category of the user ([0075]: any user from a particular neighborhood automatically has access to all communications posted by other members from the same neighborhood with the intent to share them with all current and future members of the neighborhood);
managing communications between the multitude of users, wherein the multitude of users communicate with each other as permitted by the software application ([0076]: any user from a particular neighborhood automatically has access to all communications posted by other members from the same neighborhood with the intent to share them with all current and future members of the neighborhood);
collecting data from the communications that has transpired between the multitude of users, wherein the data is stored in a database ([0045]: application server can have one or more databases for storing user communications, such as personal messages, posts, comments, etc.);
Tolia does not explicitly disclose
analyzing the data, wherein the data is reviewed by an administrator and publishes it to be available to users so as to identify either a problem or a solution;
implementing a solution, wherein the data is utilized to identify a solution, wherein the solution addresses a need or problem at the at least one building.
However, Shaffer discloses
analyzing the data, wherein the data is reviewed by an administrator and publishes it to be available to users so as to identify either a problem or a solution ([0017]: receive and analyze the social media message, identify a problem associated with a customer of a company);
implementing a solution, wherein the data is utilized to identify a solution, wherein the solution addresses a need or problem at the at least one building ([0017]: identify a solution provided for the problem in social media associated with the social media message).
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the feature of Shaffer in Tolia because Tolia discloses provide communications to users ([0033]) and Shaffer further suggests analyze social media message, identify a problem, and identify a solution provided for the problem ([0017]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize the teachings of Shaffer in Tolia system in order to provide a better system for efficiently determining actionable items and resolutions as suggested by Shaffer ([0001]).
Regarding claim 2, Tolia and Shaffer disclose the multi-unit building communication network and method as described in claim 1. Tolia further discloses
the assignment of the category is based on the physical address of the multi-unit building ([0050]: a user is assigned to a particular neighborhood based on the user’s place of residence, as defined, for example, by an address or by the spatial coordinates of the user’s home).
Regarding claim 3, Tolia and Shaffer disclose the multi-unit building communication network and method as described in claim 2. Tolia further discloses
a step of creating user groups, wherein the user groups are created based on the category and sub-category of users, wherein user groups comprise of users having a same sub-category and category assignment ([0064]: an existing neighborhood can be associated not only with a geographical area, but with a membership group; a neighborhood called “Seniors of Sampletown” can be associated both with a geographical area and with a membership group requiring that all its members are 65 years old or older).
Regarding claim 4, Tolia and Shaffer disclose the multi-unit building communication network and method as described in claim 3. Tolia further discloses
data is inputted into the software utilizing at least one of the following data types: audio data, video data or text data ([0043]: communication network can include cellular networks (e.g., 3GPP) or landline telephone networks, enabling data exchange not-only via IP-based protocols (e.g., HTTP, HTTPS, POP, IMAP, SMTP, SIP, SSH, etc.) but also via text messages, automatic or personal phone calls, voicemails, etc.; & [0071]: text message).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tolia in view of Shaffer, and further in view of Bhattacharya et al. (US 2020/0226524 A1), hereinafter Bhattacharya.
Regarding claim 5, Tolia and Shaffer disclose the multi-unit building communication network and method as described in claim 4. Tolia and Shaffer do not explicitly disclose
a step of comparing data from a first building to a second building, wherein data collected from the first building and second building are compared to identify differences therebetween.
However, Bhattacharya discloses
a step of comparing data from a first building to a second building, wherein data collected from the first building and second building are compared to identify differences therebetween ([0002]: manages various data associated with one or more buildings, and allows a user to compare the data among different buildings).
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the feature of Bhattacharya in Tolia and Shaffer because Tolia and Shaffer disclose store data (Tolia: [0045]) and Bhattacharya further suggests compare data among different buildings and send notification indicating root cause for one of the buildings that present worse comparison results of performance indicators ([0015-0017]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize the teachings of Bhattacharya in Tolia and Shaffer system in order to provide effective analysis and information management of data as suggested by Bhattacharya ([0003]).
Claim(s) 6 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tolia in view of Shaffer and Bhattacharya, and further in view of Amacker et al. (US 2018/0005304 A1), hereinafter Amacker.
Regarding claim 6, Tolia, Shaffer, and Bhattacharya disclose the multi-unit building communication network and method as described in claim 5. Tolia, Shaffer, and Bhattacharya do not explicitly disclose
a step of concealing an identity of a user participating in a user group.
However, Amacker discloses
a step of concealing an identity of a user participating in a user group ([0062]: identity of user who provided an update is concealed).
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the feature of Amacker in Tolia, Shaffer, and Bhattacharya because Tolia, Shaffer, and Bhattacharya disclose assign user to neighborhood (Tolia: [0064]) and Amacker further suggests conceal identity of user ([0062]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize the teachings of Amacker in Tolia, Shaffer, and Bhattacharya system in order to protect user identity.
Regarding claim 7, Tolia, Shaffer, Bhattacharya, and Amacker disclose the multi-unit building communication network and method as described in claim 6. Tolia further discloses
a step of facilitating communication between users of a same category between many buildings, but between just two buildings at a time ([0078]: having access to “Nearby Neighborhoods” enable members to: make a post with the intent to share it with members of their “Nearby Neighborhoods,” in addition to their own neighborhood).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tolia in view of Shaffer, Bhattacharya, and Amacker, and further in view of Hotchkiss et al. (US 2003/0140043 A1), hereinafter Hotchkiss.
Regarding claim 8, Tolia, Shaffer, Bhattacharya, and Amacker disclose the multi-unit building communication network and method as described in claim 7. Tolia, Shaffer, Bhattacharya, and Amacker do not explicitly disclose
a step of restricting communication between a user having a first sub-category and a user having a second sub-category.
However, Hotchkiss discloses
a step of restricting communication between a user having a first sub-category and a user having a second sub-category ([0028]: restrict or limit electronic communication between users based on the roles assigned to the users).
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the feature of Hotchkiss in Tolia, Shaffer, Bhattacharya and Amacker because Tolia, Shaffer, Bhattacharya, and Amacker disclose assign user to neighborhood (Tolia: [0064]) and Hotchkiss further suggests restrict communication between users based on the roles assigned to the users ([0028]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize the teachings of Hotchkiss in Tolia, Shaffer, Bhattacharya, and Amacker system in order to reduce unwanted communications.
Claim(s) 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tolia in view of Shaffer, Bhattacharya, Amacker, and Hotchkiss, and further in view of Furtado et al. (US 10,171,472 B2), hereinafter Furtado.
Regarding claim 9, Tolia, Shaffer, Bhattacharya, Amacker, and Hotchkiss disclose the multi-unit building communication network and method as described in claim 8. Tolia, Shaffer, Bhattacharya, Amacker, and Hotchkiss do not explicitly disclose
a step of requesting a communication with another user in a user group, wherein the software application provides acceptance or rejection of the communication request based on the sub-category of the user making the request.
However, Furtado discloses
a step of requesting a communication with another user in a user group, wherein the software application provides acceptance or rejection of the communication request based on the sub-category of the user making the request (Claim 6: receive, from a second individual user of the service, a request to initiate, through the service, communication with the individual use in a specified role; deny communication between the second individual user and the individual user through the service if the specified role is not the current role of the individual user).
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the feature of Furtado in Tolia, Shaffer, Bhattacharya, Amacker and Hotchkiss because Tolia, Shaffer, Bhattacharya, Amacker and Hotchkiss disclose communication between users (Tolia: abstract) and Furtado further suggests deny communication between users through service based on role of user (claim 6).
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize the teachings of Furtado in Tolia, Shaffer, Bhattacharya, Amacker and Hotchkiss system in order to reduce unwanted communications.
Regarding claim 10, Tolia, Shaffer, Bhattacharya, Amacker, Hotchkiss, and Furtado disclose the multi-unit building communication network and method as described in claim 9. Tolia further discloses
a step of permitting communication only between users of the same sub-category ([0126]: provide the ability for Leads in Nearby Neighborhoods to communicate in a private group; Leads corresponds to users of the same sub-category) or with other sub-categories based the list of privileges and restrictions applied to that particular sub-group of users.
Regarding claim 11, Tolia, Shaffer, Bhattacharya, Amacker, Hotchkiss, and Furtado disclose the multi-unit building communication network and method as described in claim 10. Tolia further discloses
a step of classifying the user groups, wherein the user groups are classified by the physical address of a building with which all of the users are affiliated ([0064]: an existing neighborhood can be associated not only with a geographical area, but with a membership group).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Park et al. (US 2014/0222908 A1). Create a new account for user, the user is required to disclose the user’s physical address.
Kunapuli et al. (US 2016/0026635 A1). Categorizes/classifies the user into one or more categories; the user may be categorized as one of Employee – Admin, Employee – so on.
Gamberini (US 2016/0261424 A1). Once a new group member is registered with the user account, the location of the corresponding building, geofence information, as well as other information may be delivered and registered with the location service of the new group member’s mobile device.
Grozdina et al. (US 2024/0127520 A1). The users have the same contact category settings, but since the users are friends, the contact interaction is allowed ([0122]).
Dhandapani et al. (US 11,107,022 B2). Assign building administrator roles to users and to assign tenant administrator roles to users.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAYLEE J HUANG whose telephone number is (571)272-0080. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM.
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, Joon H Hwang can be reached on 571-272-4036. 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.
Kaylee Huang
1/29/2025
/KAYLEE J HUANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2447