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 .
Status of Claim(s)
Claims 1-8, 10-21, 23-25, 27-29 have been examined. Claims 1,14, 21, 27 have been amended. Claims 9, 22,26 have been previously canceled. Claims 28-29 have previously been added.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No 11,894,129. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both claims recite the same features of “compare the care schedule of the senior with the scheduling data of the plurality of caregivers to determine a calendar conflict associated with a first event of the plurality of events and assigned to a first caregiver of the plurality of caregivers” and “generate, via a chatbot, an audio alert to the calendar conflict, wherein the audio alert is in natural language and describes the calendar conflict including identifying the first caregiver assigned to the first event”.
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 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) 1-8, 10-21, 23-25, 27-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Timothy Cameron et al. (US 20070274464A1 hereinafter Cameron) in view of Wang et al. (US20190122760A1 hereinafter Wang) and further in view of Pasupalak et al. (US20180260384A1 hereinafter Pasupalak)
With respect to claim 1, Cameron teaches a care coordination support platform (“CCSP”) computer system for coordinating care, the CCSP computer system including at least one processor and/or associated transceiver in communication with at least one memory device, the at least one processor and/or associated transceiver are programmed to:
register a plurality of caregivers associated with a senior through an application, wherein each caregiver of the plurality of caregivers inputs caregiver scheduling data into the application (‘464; Abstract: the information collected from the call recipients is provided to one or more caregivers. Caregivers may also provide information and communicate with the call recipients. Call recipients may be provided with opportunities to alter their call plan data by providing verbal responses during a call or by providing feedback in the form of mail responses to letters seeking feedback from the call recipient.; Para 0024: a caregiver may initially create a user account using a caregiver terminal, …Para 0010, Para 0025: The setup process may require the caregiver to input, for example, the name, address, and phone number(s) of a desired call recipient (including subsequent phone numbers to be tried if the call recipient does not answer the phone at a first phone number dialed); a theme for the calls to be received by the call recipient (such as inspirational, entertainment, spiritual, etc.); optional information concerning photo/letter options, dialog, options, message options, etc.; a desired call schedule (for example, daily or weekly calls at a selected time of day); a desired report schedule and method of delivery (for example, by email, website or mail); alert behaviors (for example, behaviors for which the caregiver should receive an automated or manually generated alert email message or phone call),);
store a care schedule of the senior, including senior scheduling data comprising a plurality of events for the senior, and a caregiver of the plurality of caregivers assigned to each of the plurality of events (‘464; Para 0010: The multichannel content personalization system according to the present invention enables caregivers to provide seniors and other call recipients with periodic, e.g., daily or weekly, positive emotional events and social experiences, to monitor and understand the level of wellbeing of the call recipient, to provide for increased care compliance for the call recipient, and to obtain talking points that will provide a basis for substantive conversations with the call recipient; Para 0029: The stored data from the calls may be used to generate reports to one or more caregivers, modify the timing, structure and/or content of future calls made to the call recipient, and/or generate alert messages to a caregiver or other emergency contact. The stored data may further be used to analyze the status of health and wellbeing of the call recipient )
Cameron does not, but Wang teaches
compare the senior scheduling data with the caregiver scheduling data to determine a calendar conflict between the senior scheduling data and first caregiver scheduling data of the caregiver scheduling data, the first caregiver scheduling data associated with a first caregiver of the plurality of caregivers, the calendar conflict associated with a first event of the plurality of events, the first event assigned to the first caregiver at a first time (‘760; Para 0116: A caregiver may prioritize the various preset limitations in order to resolve potential conflicts when they arise ; Para 0160:if the caregiver cancels (Yes, Step 426), then computing system 100 must dispatch a new caregiver. In one embodiment computer system 100 dispatches service request 300 based on one or more replacement caregivers identified by the cancelling caregiver if the patient has preset permission to allow replacement caregivers Para 0201: Even when a conflict exists between a caregiver and potential duties of one or more service requests, the system may still assign one or more service requests to a caregiver in the event the system determines the conflict to be a minor one which can be resolved by the caregiver, thus allowing flexibility in the system.).
; and
instruct a user device associated with one of the senior or the first caregiver to audibly present the audio alert to at least one of the senior or the first caregiver (‘760; Para 0157: After a coordinator reschedules and re-dispatches service requests, computing system 100 can be configured to send another notification to the patient, which can include the previous caregiver's name, the reason why the previous caregiver cannot provide service for the patient, the new caregiver's name, the new caregiver's phone number, the new caregiver's vehicle make, brand and color, the visit start time, etc).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to modify the system of Cameron with the technique of customized scheduling of home health care services as taught by Wang in order to provide the chatbot for communication between the seniors and caregivers.
Pasupalak further discloses
generate, via a chatbot, an audio alert based upon the calendar conflict, wherein the audio alert is in natural language, identifies the first caregiver assigned to the first event, and recommends a proposed alternate caregiver available to replace the first caregiver and be assigned to the first event at the first time or rescheduling the first event with the first caregiver at a second time (‘384; Para 0006: to provide a conversation agent to process natural language queries expressed by a user and perform commands according to the derived intention of the user… The at least one user query may be received as an audio input comprising speech received from a user communication device; Para 0235: the Dialogue Manager 116 is configured to select an appropriate dialogue to present to the user depending on the state of the command intended by the user. For example, Dialogue Manager 116 may access different dialogue messages that are associated with certain command states such as “pending”, “results available”, “confirmation that command has been performed”, “clarification necessary”, “scheduling conflict found”, etc.; Para 0236: s shown in FIG. 40, at 4010-4030, Services Manager 130 may determine if the event requested by the user to be scheduled conflicts with any of the requested participant's schedule.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to modify the system of Cameron/Wang with the technique of conversional agent as taught by Pasupalak in order to provide the chatbot for communication between the seniors and caregivers
Claims 14 and 27 are rejected as the same reason with claim 1.
With respect to claim 2, the combined art teaches the CCSP computer system of Claim 1, wherein the at least one processor and/or associated transceiver is further configured to register the senior through the application, wherein the senior inputs scheduling data into the application (‘464; Para 0038).
Claim 15 is rejected as the same reason with claim 2.
With respect to claim 3, the combined art teaches the CCSP computer system of Claim 2, wherein the at least one processor and/or associated transceiver is further configured to create the care schedule of the senior based upon the senior scheduling data for the senior (‘464; Para 0017: Fig. 4.; Para 0024) .
Claim 16 is rejected as the same reason with claim 3.
With respect to claim 4, the combined art teaches the CCSP computer system of Claim 1, wherein the at least one processor and/or associated transceiver is further configured to receive input from the senior defining the first event associated with the senior, wherein the first event includes at least one of a task, an activity, or an appointment (‘464; Para 0010; Para 0057).
Claim 17 is rejected as the same reason with claim 4.
With respect to claim 5, the combined art teaches the CCSP computer system of Claim 1, wherein the at least one processor and/or associated transceiver is further configured to assign the first event to the first caregiver of the plurality of caregivers based upon the caregiver scheduling data, wherein the first caregiver is assigned to assist with the first event (‘760; Para 0025, Para 0028).
Claim 18 is rejected as the same reason with claim 5.
With respect to claim 6, the combined art teaches the CCSP computer system of Claim 1, wherein the at least one processor and/or associated transceiver is further configured to: receive, via the chatbot, input from at least one of the senior or the first caregiver defining a second event associated with the senior, wherein the input is a natural-language voice question; and add the second event to the care schedule of the senior (‘464; Paras 0007-0008, 0023).
Claim 19 is rejected as the same reason with claim 6.
With respect to claim 7, the combined art teaches the CCSP computer system of Claim 1, wherein the at least one processor and/or associated transceiver is further configured to invoke chatbot to explain to both the senior and the first caregiver that the calendar conflict exists (‘384; Para 0235).
Claim 20 is rejected as the same reason with claim 7.
With respect to claim 8, the combined art teaches the CCSP computer system of Claim 1, wherein the at least one processor and/or associated transceiver is further configured to analyze the senior scheduling data with the caregiver scheduling data to determine an alternate caregiver that is available at the time and date of the calendar conflict to resolve the calendar conflict (‘760; Paras 0116, 0118).
Claim 21 is rejected as the same reason with claim 8.
With respect to claim 10, the combined art teaches the CCSP computer system of Claim 1, wherein the at least one processor and/or associated transceiver is further configured to input schedule-related data into a machine learning algorithm, model, module, or program that is trained to identify calendar or scheduling conflicts and/or associated scheduling resolutions using schedule-related and/or calendar data associated with seniors and multiple caregivers (‘384; Paras 0073, 0212).
Claim 23 is rejected as the same reason with claim 10.
With respect to claim 11, the combined art teaches the CCSP computer system of Claim 1, wherein the first event is a medical-related event or a doctor’s appointment (‘464; Para 0047).
Claim 24 is rejected as the same reason with claim 11.
With respect to claim 12, the combined art teaches the CCSP computer system of Claim 1, wherein the first event is an exercise or physical fitness event (‘464; Para 0047).
Claim 25 is rejected as the same reason with claim 12.
With respect to claim 13, the combined art teaches the CCSP computer system of Claim 1, wherein the first event is a vehicle or home repair event (‘608; Abstract).
With respect to claim 28, the combined art teaches the CCSP computer system of Claim 1, wherein the at least one processor and/or associated transceiver is further configured to receive, via the chatbot and from the user device, a verbal acceptance of the proposed alternate caregiver to replace the first caregiver and be assigned to the first event (‘760; Para 0076).
With respect to claim 29, the combined art teaches the CCSP computer system of Claim 28, wherein the at least one processor and/or associated transceiver is further configured to: update the senior scheduling data to updated senior scheduling data that includes the proposed alternate caregiver being assigned to the first event; generate, via the chatbot, a second audio alert based upon the updated senior scheduling data; and instruct the user device to present the second audio alert (‘760; Para 0022, 0157, 0160).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the references of Wang/Pasupalak being used in the current rejection.
Applicant's arguments filed 01/06/2016 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the Remark filed 01/06/2026, the Applicant argued that the combined prior art doe not teach, and particularly paragraph [0130] of the present Application explains that "the one or more processors may analyze the updated schedule-related data to identify potential replacement caregivers for a scheduled appointment or activity, or to identify potential replacement times for a given appointment or activity with a specific caregiver."
In response to the Applicant’s argument, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. In fact Wang discloses If the caregiver cancels (Yes, Step 426), then computing system 100 must dispatch a new caregiver. In one embodiment computer system 100 dispatches service request 300 based on one or more replacement caregivers identified by the cancelling caregiver if the patient has preset permission to allow replacement caregivers (‘760; Para 0160). Wang further discloses computing system 100 may identify whether the assigned caregiver has any replacement caregivers. If so, computing system 100 may identify whether any of the replacement caregivers are or will be available to service the service request XC based on their current or estimated locations, any potential conflicts such as blacklists, etc., or any conflicts between their limitations and the patient's preferences which would preclude an assignment (Step 914) (‘760; Para 0235). Pasupalak discloses using Template Tagger 318, NLP Engine 114 creates and populates a template 319 which may be directed to Services Manager 130. Services Manager 130 processes the intended command according to the flowchart shown in FIG. 40. As shown in FIG. 40, at 4010-4030, Services Manager 130 may determine if the event requested by the user to be scheduled conflicts with any of the requested participant's schedule (‘384; Para 0236).
Given broadest reasonable interpretation of the recited claim, it is submitted that identifying the replacement caregiver due to the conflict of scheduled appointment of Wang using natural language via chat service or dialog service of Pasupalak are in a form described in the invention.
Therefore, the Examiner maintains rejection of all claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure..
Ho, Annabell Suh; Understanding the Impact of Conversational AI on Supportive Interactions: Toward Care (Conversational AI and Response Effects) Model 2018).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HIEP VAN NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5211. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday between 8:00AM and 5:00PM 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, Jason B Dunham can be reached on 5712728109. 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.
/HIEP V NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3686
Prosecution Insights