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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and have been entered into the record. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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 1-18 and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-patentable subject matter. The claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-18 and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to Step 1 of the eligibility inquiry (as explained in MPEP 2106), it is first noted that the method (claims 11-18 and 21), computer program product (claim 20), and system (claims 1-10) are directed to potentially eligible categories of subject matter (i.e., process, machine, and article of manufacture respectively). Thus, Step 1 is satisfied.
With respect to Step 2, and in particular Step 2A Prong One, it is next noted that the claims recite an abstract idea by reciting 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) which falls into the “Certain methods of organizing human activity” within the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas set forth in the 2019 PEG. The mere nominal recitation of a generic computer does not take the claim limitation out of methods of organizing human activity grouping.
The limitations reciting the abstract idea(s) (Certain methods of organizing human activity), as set forth in exemplary claim 11, are: determining that a computing device is at a premises; determining that a profile associated with the computing device corresponds to a scheduled appointment at the premises with an entity; in response to determining that the profile is associated with the scheduled appointment, causing the computing device to provide a selectable option to send an indication signal; and receiving an indication of actuation of the selectable option and, in response, sending a notification to a terminal associated with the entity indicating that the computing device is at the premises. Independent claims 1 and 20 recite the CRM and system for performing the method of independent claim 11 without adding significantly more. Thus, the same rationale/analysis is applied.
With respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements are directed to: A computer-implemented method …A computer system comprising: a communications module; one or more processors coupled to the communications module; and a memory coupled to the one or more processors and storing instructions that, when executed by the computer system, cause the computer system to…; A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising processor- executable instructions which, when executed, configure one or more processors to… (as recited in claims 1, 11, and 20). However, these elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they fail to provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field, fail to apply the exception with a particular machine, fail to apply the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, fail to effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing, and fail to apply/use the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Accordingly, because the Step 2A Prong One and Prong Two analysis resulted in the conclusion that the claims are directed to an abstract idea, additional analysis under Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry must be conducted in order to determine whether any claim element or combination of elements amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry, it has been determined that the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional limitation(s) is/are directed to: A computer-implemented method …A computer system comprising: a communications module; one or more processors coupled to the communications module; and a memory coupled to the one or more processors and storing instructions that, when executed by the computer system, cause the computer system to…; A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising processor- executable instructions which, when executed, configure one or more processors to… (as recited in claims 1, 11, and 20) for implementing the claim steps/functions. These elements have been considered, but merely serve to tie the invention to a particular operating environment (i.e., computer-based implementation), though at a very high level of generality and without imposing meaningful limitation on the scope of the claim.
The additional elements have been evaluated, but fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they amount to using generic computing elements or instructions (software) to perform the abstract idea, similar to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), which merely serves to link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (generic computing environment). See MPEP 2106.05(f) and 2106.05(h). Even if the acquiring steps are considered as additional elements, these steps at most amount to insignificant extra-solution activity accomplished via receiving/transmitting data, which is not enough to amount to a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
In addition, Applicant’s Specification (paragraph [0059]) describes generic off-the-shelf computer-based elements for implementing the claimed invention, and which does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, which is not enough to transform an abstract idea into eligible subject matter. Such generic, high-level, and nominal involvement of a computer or computer-based elements for carrying out the invention merely serves to tie the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, which is not enough to render the claims patent-eligible, as noted at pg. 74624 of Federal Register/Vol. 79, No. 241, citing Alice, which in turn cites Mayo. See, e.g., Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network).
In addition, when taken as an ordered combination, the ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Therefore, when viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea or that the ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Further, the courts have found the presentation of data to be a well-understood, routine, conventional activity, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93 (see MPEP 2106.05(d)).
The dependent claims (2-10, 12-18, and 21) are directed to the same abstract idea as recited in the independent claims, and merely incorporate additional details that narrow the abstract idea via additional details of the abstract idea. For example claims 12-18 and 21 “in response to the indication of actuation of the selectable option to send the indication signal, facilitating a chat session between the terminal and the computing device, wherein the selectable option is a selectable option to ring a digital doorbell; in response to the indication of actuation of the selectable option to send the indication signal, providing navigational information to the computing device to facilitate location of a meeting point; in response to a determination that the computing device is at the premises: transmitting a message to the terminal prompting for input indicating confirmation of availability to attend the scheduled appointment; and receiving from the terminal an indication of confirmation of availability; in response to receiving the indication of confirmation of availability, causing the computing device to provide the selectable option to send the indication signal; further comprising, prior to determining that the computing device is at the premises, scheduling the appointment; further comprising, in response to a determination that the computing device is at the premises: determining that the profile associated with the computing device is not associated with an appointment at the premises; and triggering the computing device to provide an option to schedule an appointment; wherein determining that the profile corresponds to the scheduled appointment is based on anonymous information received from the computing device; further comprising, in response to a determination that the computing device is at the premises”, without additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and without additional elements that amount to significantly more to the claims. The remaining dependent claims (2-10) recite the system for performing the method of claims 12-18 and 21. Thus, the same rationale/analysis is applied. Thus, all dependent claims have been fully considered, however, these claims are similarly directed to the abstract idea itself, without integrating it into a practical application and with, at most, a general purpose computer that serves to tie the idea to a particular technological environment, which does not add significantly more to the claims.
The ordered combination of elements in the dependent claims (including the limitations inherited from the parent claim(s)) add nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Accordingly, the subject matter encompassed by the dependent claims fails to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
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.
Claims 1, 3-6, 11, 13-17, and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. PGPub 20120059580 (hereinafter “Coughlin”) et al., in view of U.S. Patent 8707206 to (hereinafter “Boutcher”) et al.
As per claim 1, Coughlin teaches A computer system comprising: a communications module; one or more processors coupled to the communications module; and a memory coupled to the one or more processors and storing instructions that, when executed by the computer system, cause the computer system to: (see Coughlin claim 57)
determine that a computing device is at a premises; 0153: “the calendar application automatically determines the present location of the first participant using location providing technology implemented in the client device of the first participant If the client device is equipped with multiple location providing technologies, the calendar application may use the technology that provides the more accurate information about the present location. In one example, the client device includes a mobile device that is GPS-enabled, and the calendar application automatically determines the present location of the first participant based on the GPS position of the client device. In another example, the present location of the first participant is automatically determined by registering the client device with a host (e.g., a Session Initiation Protocol ("SIP")) server. The client device may provide information to the host that is used to derive location information. For example, the host may derive location information based on how the client device is accessing the network (e.g., as identified by source IP address or another packet identifier).”Note: The art teaches device location at the appointment location based on GPS received from the client device.
determine that a profile associated with the computing device corresponds to a scheduled appointment at the premises with an entity; 0148-0150: “ The process 1300 includes the calendar application identifying an appointment within a calendar application (1305) and identifying a geographic location of the appointment and the time at which the appointment is due to start (1310)… The process 1300 also includes the calendar application identifying participants of the appointment (1315). In one example, the calendar application searches participant field to identify the participants of the appointment. To this end, the calendar application identifies at least two participants (e.g., a first participant and a second participant).”Note: The art identifies the scheduled appointment, its location, and matches participants/profile to the appointment.
…and, in response, send a notification to a terminal associated with the entity indicating that the computing device is at the premises;0165: “ If it is determined that the travel time exceeds the remaining time, the calendar application sends a message (1350). For instance, the calendar application may alert the first participant by displaying an alert display to the first participant that informs the first participant of the same. The calendar application also may send a message to other participants of the appointment indicating that the first participant likely will be late for the appointment. The message may be a reschedule request from the first participant that does not specify the reason that the first participant needs to reschedule the meeting (e.g., that the first participant is running late). The calendar application may send a message to other users that are not participants of the appointment For example, the calendar application may send a message to the first participant's assistant, a family member of the first participant, participants scheduled to have a subsequent appointment with the first participant after the appointment, etc. In this example, the message may indicate that the first participant may be running late.”
Coughlin may not explicitly teach the following. However, Boutcher teaches:
in response to a determination that the profile is associated with the scheduled appointment, cause the computing device to provide a selectable option to send an indication signal; 021-031: “According to the invention, along with the appointment reminder, the notification also includes user-selectable features that enable the user to conduct optional transactions relating to the appointment. For example, the user can confirm, reschedule, or cancel the appointment… FIG. 4 depicts the appointment reminder notification that is displayed on the iphone, consistent with step 34 (FIG. 2). As shown, the displayed notification features two possible transactions or options for the user to select: Confirm or Reschedule. FIGS. 5-6 depict the transaction operations relating to an appointment confirmation, as selected by the user. FIGS. 7-8 depict the transaction operations relating to an appointment reschedule, as selected by the user. FIG. 3 is a diagram illustrating the flow of information in furtherance of conducting the rescheduling transaction displayed by FIGS. 7-8.”Note: The art displays selectable options (confirm/schedule) on the mobile device that when selected, sends signals to the server.
and receive an indication of actuation of the selectable option…; 022-033: “ Once the notification is displayed, then, the user selects the feature (appointment-related transaction) that the user desires, which constitutes the user's reply to the appointment reminder (step 36). The reply corresponds to the user's selection of a particular appointment task, e.g., confirm, reschedule, or cancel the appointment (step 38)… If the user wants to proceed with the scheduled appointment, and does so by selecting the Confirm tab (option button/feature/icon) in FIG. 4, then the screen shot of FIG. 5 appears. What is happening in the background is that client application 20 has sent the user's reply (appointment acceptance) to server 12 for acknowledgment and approval, consistent with steps 36, 38 (FIG. 2). In this scenario, server 12 can include the company web service URL.”Note: The art teaches that the server receives the user’s section/actuation when client application 20 has sent he users reply to server 12.
Coughlin and Boutcher are deemed to be analogous references as they are reasonably pertinent to each other and directed towards measuring, collecting, and analyzing information with a series of inputs to solve similar problems in the similar environments. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Coughlin with the aforementioned teachings from Boutcher with a reasonable expectation of success, by adding steps that allow the software to select/send data with the motivation to more efficiently and accurately organize and communicate information [Boutcher 031].
As per claim 3, Coughlin and Boutcher teach all the limitations of claim 1.
In addition, Coughlin teaches:
wherein the instructions further cause the computer system to, in response to the indication of actuation of the selectable option to send the indication signal, provide navigational information to the computing device to facilitate location of a meeting point; 0074-0076: “ the calendar application may access an online resource (e.g., Internet) to perform a web search or a database search to determine the address for the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. In this manner and in one specific example, after performing the search, the calendar application identifies multiple addresses associated with the appointment...Along these lines, the process 200 includes the calendar application identifying a mute extending from the geographic location of the first appointment to the geographic location of the second appointment (230). To do so, in one implementation, the calendar application has a built in navigation component, allowing it to generate directions from the geographic location of the first appointment 115 to the geographic location of the second appointment 120. In another implementation and as noted above, the calendar application communicates the location information for each appointment to a navigation application that is physically or logically distinct from the calendar application and requests, from the navigation application, that it identifies the travel route and the travel time associated therewith. The U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/618,069, filed on Dec. 29, 2006 and entitled "Communicating Appointment And/Or Mapping Information Among A Calendar Application And A Navigation Application," describes in detail concepts that effect communications of appointment information from a calendar application to a navigation application for generating a travel route and a travel time associated therewith. The entire content of this application is incorporated herein by reference.
As per claim 4, Coughlin and Boutcher teach all the limitations of claim 1.
In addition, Coughlin teaches:
transmit a message to the terminal prompting for input indicating confirmation of availability to attend the scheduled appointment; 0165:” If it is determined that the travel time exceeds the remaining time, the calendar application sends a message (1350). For instance, the calendar application may alert the first participant by displaying an alert display to the first participant that informs the first participant of the same. The calendar application also may send a message to other participants of the appointment indicating that the first participant likely will be late for the appointment. The message may be a reschedule request from the first participant that does not specify the reason that the first participant needs to reschedule the meeting (e.g., that the first participant is running late). The calendar application may send a message to other users that are not participants of the appointment For example, the calendar application may send a message to the first participant's assistant, a family member of the first participant, participants scheduled to have a subsequent appointment with the first participant after the appointment, etc. In this example, the message may indicate that the first participant may be running late.”
Coughlin may not explicitly teach the following. However, Boutcher teaches:
and receive from the terminal an indication of confirmation of availability; 031-033: “FIG. 4 depicts the appointment reminder notification that is displayed on the iphone, consistent with step 34 (FIG. 2). As shown, the displayed notification features two possible transactions or options for the user to select: Confirm or Reschedule. FIGS. 5-6 depict the transaction operations relating to an appointment confirmation, as selected by the user. FIGS. 7-8 depict the transaction operations relating to an appointment reschedule, as selected by the user. FIG. 3 is a diagram illustrating the flow of information in furtherance of conducting the rescheduling transaction displayed by FIGS. 7-8… If the user wants to proceed with the scheduled appointment, and does so by selecting the Confirm tab (option button/feature/icon) in FIG. 4, then the screen shot of FIG. 5 appears. What is happening in the background is that client application 20 has sent the user's reply (appointment acceptance) to server 12 for acknowledgment and approval, consistent with steps 36, 38 (FIG. 2). In this scenario, server 12 can include the company web service URL.”
Coughlin and Boutcher are deemed to be analogous references as they are reasonably pertinent to each other and directed towards measuring, collecting, and analyzing information with a series of inputs to solve similar problems in the similar environments. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Coughlin with the aforementioned teachings from Boutcher with a reasonable expectation of success, by adding steps that allow the software to confirm data with the motivation to more efficiently and accurately organize and communicate information [Boutcher 031].
As per claim 5, Coughlin and Boutcher teach all the limitations of claim 4.
In addition, Boutcher teaches:
wherein the instructions further cause the computer system to, in response to receiving the indication of confirmation of availability, cause the computing device to provide the selectable option to send the indication signal;021-022: “ According to the invention, along with the appointment reminder, the notification also includes user-selectable features that enable the user to conduct optional transactions relating to the appointment. For example, the user can confirm, reschedule, or cancel the appointment. Once the notification is displayed, then, the user selects the feature (appointment-related transaction) that the user desires, which constitutes the user's reply to the appointment reminder (step 36). The reply corresponds to the user's selection of a particular appointment task, e.g., confirm, reschedule, or cancel the appointment (step 38).”
Coughlin and Boutcher are deemed to be analogous references as they are reasonably pertinent to each other and directed towards measuring, collecting, and analyzing information with a series of inputs to solve similar problems in the similar environments. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Coughlin with the aforementioned teachings from Boutcher with a reasonable expectation of success, by adding steps that allow the software to confirm data with the motivation to more efficiently and accurately organize and communicate information [Boutcher 031].
As per claim 6, Coughlin and Boutcher teach all the limitations of claim 1.
In addition, Coughlin teaches:
wherein the instructions further cause the computer system to, prior to determining that the computing device is at the premises, schedule the appointment; 0059: “if the travel time associated with the route does not exceed the time gap between the two appointments, the calendar application schedules the second appointment at the requested time. Along these lines, if the user now wishes to schedule a third appointment between the first and second appointments, the calendar application first ensures that the proposed timing of the third appointment does not present a conflict (e.g., absence of sufficient travel time between the first and third appointments or between the third and second appointments) before accepting the third appointment…0148: The process 1300 may be activated either manually or automatically. The manual activation may be through a setting (e.g., an icon) appearing in the calendar application or a navigation application. The process 1300 includes the calendar application identifying an appointment within a calendar application (1305) and identifying a geographic location of the appointment and the time at which the appointment is due to start (1310).”
As per claim 21, Coughlin and Boutcher teach all the limitations of claim 11.
In addition, Coughlin teaches:
transmitting a summary generated by an artificial intelligence algorithm based on the profile to the terminal; 0165: “If it is determined that the travel time exceeds the remaining time, the calendar application sends a message (1350). For instance, the calendar application may alert the first participant by displaying an alert display to the first participant that informs the first participant of the same. The calendar application also may send a message to other participants of the appointment indicating that the first participant likely will be late for the appointment. The message may be a reschedule request from the first participant that does not specify the reason that the first participant needs to reschedule the meeting (e.g., that the first participant is running late). The calendar application may send a message to other users that are not participants of the appointment For example, the calendar application may send a message to the first participant's assistant, a family member of the first participant, participants scheduled to have a subsequent appointment with the first participant after the appointment, etc. In this example, the message may indicate that the first participant may be running late.”
Claims 11 and 20 are parallel claims reciting the same inventions as claim 1 in method and CRM form, respectively. Thus, the same prior art and rationale apply.
Claims 13-17 are parallel claims reciting the same inventions as claim 1 and 3-6 in method form, respectively. Thus, the same prior art and rationale apply.
Claims 2 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. PGPub 20120059580 (hereinafter “Coughlin”) et al., in view of U.S. Patent 8707206 to (hereinafter “Boutcher”) et al., in further view of U.S. PGPub 20160253898 to (hereinafter “Cobb”) et al.
As per claim 2, Coughlin and Boutcher teach all the limitations of claim 1.
Coughlin and Boutcher may not explicitly teach the following. However, Cobb teaches:
wherein the instructions further cause the computer system to, in response to the indication of actuation of the selectable option, facilitate a chat session between the terminal and the computing device, wherein the selectable option is an option to ring a digital doorbell; 0013-0022: “the monitoring system can be configured to establish a communication channel with the user's remote device (e.g., a cellular telephone) and establish a communication channel with a security communication device in the home (e.g., an intercom at the front door), so as to enable the user to talk to and/or listen to whoever is at the door of the home. Optionally, the user can be provided with video or still pictures of the person at the door obtained by a security camera connected to the monitoring system…the controller 120 establishes communication with the remote device over an appropriate communication channel (e.g., cellular telephone communication channel) at step 230 and establishes another communication path with a security communication device over an appropriate communication channel at step 235. Thus, the user can communicate with the visitor via the controller 120. Communication can be one-way or two-way in accordance with limitations of the security communication device or remote device.”
Coughlin, Boutcher, and Cobb are deemed to be analogous references as they are reasonably pertinent to each other and directed towards measuring, collecting, and analyzing information with a series of inputs to solve similar problems in the similar environments. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Coughlin and Boutcher with the aforementioned teachings from Cobb with a reasonable expectation of success, by adding steps that allow the software to communicate with the motivation to more efficiently and accurately organize and communicate information [Cobb 031].
Claim 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. PGPub 20120059580 (hereinafter “Coughlin”) et al., in view of U.S. Patent 8707206 to (hereinafter “Boutcher”) et al., in further view of U.S. PGPub 20080197984 to (hereinafter “Peters”) et al.
As per claim 7, Coughlin and Boutcher teach all the limitations of claim 1.
Coughlin and Boutcher may not explicitly teach the following. However, Peters teaches:
determine that the profile associated with the computing device is not associated with an appointment at the premises; and trigger the computing device to provide an option to schedule an appointment; 0033: “As used herein, the term "walk-in facility" is meant to be used and defined in its general and ordinary sense. To wit, a walk-in facility generally refers to any facility that will service a patron or customer with little or no advance notice. This includes facilities that a patron may physically enter, but may also include other facilities, such as those that offer drive-thru service and those that offer remote service by internet, telephone, and the like. Of course, this is not meant to be limiting in any manner and these facilities may take on numerous configurations, and may be used for numerous purposes as is generally known within the art…0012: The aforementioned drawbacks and disadvantages of traditional scheduling systems have been identified and a solution is set forth herein by the inventive business method for reducing a patron's waiting time at a walk-in facility wherein the method comprises providing a communications network including a first communications link between a patron and walk-in facility, providing a queue, and receiving a consultation request via the first communications link. A position is reserved in the queue in response to the consultation request, and a time period before a future available consultation is determined, after which notice of the determined time period is provided to the patron. “
Coughlin, Boutcher, and Peters are deemed to be analogous references as they are reasonably pertinent to each other and directed towards measuring, collecting, and analyzing information with a series of inputs to solve similar problems in the similar environments. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Coughlin and Boutcher with the aforementioned teachings from Peters with a reasonable expectation of success, by adding steps that allow the software to communicate with the motivation to more efficiently and accurately organize and communicate information [Peters 0033].
Claim 12 is a parallel claim reciting the same invention as claim 2 in method form, respectively. Thus, the same prior art and rationale apply.
Claims 8-10 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. PGPub 20120059580 (hereinafter “Coughlin”) et al., in view of U.S. Patent 8707206 to (hereinafter “Boutcher”) et al., in further view of U.S. Patent 8041817 to (hereinafter “Zellner”) et al.
As per claim 8, Coughlin and Boutcher teach all the limitations of claim 1.
Coughlin and Boutcher may not explicitly teach the following. However, Zellner teaches:
wherein the determination that the profile corresponds to the scheduled appointment is based on anonymous information received from the computing device; 014: “Proxy server 100 is essential to the present invention. Specifically, proxy server 100 receives, in conjunction with data messages, the location and identity information of wireless handheld devices 112, generates dummy identifications and substitutes the dummy identifications for the device identifications of devices 112, records the dummy identifications and their associated device identifications in memory storage 102, and forwards the data messaging with the location, information and dummy identification to web sites 116 and content providers 118 via global computer network 114. On the return path, proxy server 100 receives a return data message from web sites 116 and content providers 118, reads the dummy identifications, consults memory storage 102 to determine the device identification that corresponds to the dummy identification, replaces the dummy identification with the device identification, and forwards the return data message to the appropriate wireless handheld device.”
Coughlin, Boutcher, and Zellner are deemed to be analogous references as they are reasonably pertinent to each other and directed towards measuring, collecting, and analyzing information with a series of inputs to solve similar problems in the similar environments. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Coughlin and Boutcher with the aforementioned teachings from Zellner with a reasonable expectation of success, by adding steps that allow the software to communicate with the motivation to more efficiently and accurately organize and communicate information [Zellner 014].
As per claim 9, Coughlin, Boutcher, and Zellner teach all the limitations of claim 8.
In addition, Zellner teaches:
wherein the instructions further cause the computer system to: generate the anonymous information; and provision the anonymous information to the computing device for transmission to the computer system in an unauthenticated message; 014: ‘ Preferably, the proxy server reads the location and identity information of network users, generates a dummy identification, relates the dummy identification to the identity information, stores the relationship in the memory storage, and forwards the location information and dummy identification to the content provider in the global computer network. Upon receiving return messages from the global computer network, the proxy server reads the dummy identification, looks up the related identity information in the memory storage, and forwards the data to the appropriate network user…022 : Having the location and identity (e.g., MIN) of handheld wireless device 200, in step 254, proxy server 100 generates a dummy identification, replaces the device identification with the dummy identification, and relates the device identification to the dummy identification in memory storage 102. In step 256, proxy server 200 then forwards query 206 to the IP address of web site 204 through global computer network 114.”
Coughlin, Boutcher, and Zellner are deemed to be analogous references as they are reasonably pertinent to each other and directed towards measuring, collecting, and analyzing information with a series of inputs to solve similar problems in the similar environments. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Coughlin and Boutcher with the aforementioned teachings from Zellner with a reasonable expectation of success, by adding steps that allow the software to communicate with the motivation to more efficiently and accurately organize and communicate information [Zellner 014].
As per claim 10, Coughlin, Boutcher, and Zellner teach all the limitations of claim 8.
In addition, Zellner teaches:
wherein the instructions further cause the computer system to receive the anonymous information from the computing device in an unauthenticated message; 013-014: “ The system architecture in which the present invention operates further includes a plurality of handheld devices 112 in communication with wireless communication link 106, a global computer network 114 in communication with network communication link 104, and a plurality of web sites 116 and a plurality of content providers 118 in communication with global computer network 114. To track the location of wireless handheld devices 112, the system architecture includes one or both of handheld location systems (e.g., GPS) 120 or a network-based location system 122. Handheld location systems 120 are provisioned in wireless handheld devices 112 while network-based location system 122 is a part of wireless network 110, in communication with proxy server 100…Proxy server 100 is essential to the present invention. Specifically, proxy server 100 receives, in conjunction with data messages, the location and identity information of wireless handheld devices 112, generates dummy identifications and substitutes the dummy identifications for the device identifications of devices 112, records the dummy identifications and their associated device identifications in memory storage 102, and forwards the data messaging with the location, information and dummy identification to web sites 116 and content providers 118 via global computer network 114.
Coughlin, Boutcher, and Zellner are deemed to be analogous references as they are reasonably pertinent to each other and directed towards measuring, collecting, and analyzing information with a series of inputs to solve similar problems in the similar environments. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Coughlin and Boutcher with the aforementioned teachings from Zellner with a reasonable expectation of success, by adding steps that allow the software to communicate with the motivation to more efficiently and accurately organize and communicate information [Zellner 014].
Claim 18 is a parallel claim reciting the same invention as claim 8 in method form, respectively. Thus, the same prior art and rationale apply.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Wolf-Soffer; Lea. SERVICE DIRECTORY AND MANAGEMENT SYSTEM, .U.S. PGPub 20080195605 A unique process-oriented task database contains a hierarchal organization of work tasks. A service provider selects one or more tasks from the database to populate a record corresponding to the service provider; and the record is recorded in a service provider database.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Arif Ullah, whose telephone number is (571) 270-0161. The examiner can normally be reached from Monday to Friday between 9 AM and 5:30 PM.
If any attempt to reach the examiner by telephone is unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Beth Boswell, can be reached at (571) 272-6737. The fax telephone numbers for this group are either (571) 273-8300 or (703) 872-9326 (for official communications including After Final communications labeled “Box AF”)./Arif Ullah/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625