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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
This is a reply to the application filed on 12/23/2025, in which, claim(s) 1, 4-8, 11-15 and 18-20 is/are pending.
Claim(s) 2-3, 9-10 and 16-17 is/are cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 102 and 35 U.S.C. § 103:
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 4-8, 11-15 and 18-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claims 1, 4-8, 11-15 and 18-20 are 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.
The claim amendments reciting “displaying, on one of the management and a remote display panel, the unique identifier”.
There is no disclosure in the specification stating that the unique identifier is displayed on both the management device and remote display panel at the same time. Applicant’s point towards paragraph 44 of the specification for supports; however, the paragraph disclosed that the unique identifier can be display on either the management device or remote display panel, but not at the same time. As such, the amendment contains new matter.
The claim amendments reciting “assigning, responsive to a managed device scanning the unique identifier displayed on one of the manager device and the remote display panel and based on confirmation to assign, the one member selected to the managed device.”.
There is no disclosure in the specification stating that scanning the unique identifier on both the management device and remote display panel at the same time. Applicant’s point towards paragraph 44 of the specification for supports; however, the paragraph disclosed that the scanning of unique identifier on either the management device or remote display panel, but not on both. As such, the amendment contains new matter.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 4-8, 11-15 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Albrecht et al. (US 20210174921 A1; hereinafter Albrecht) in view of Daniels, JR (US 20120305644 A1; hereinafter Daniels) further in view of Sharma et al. (US 20140045472 A1; hereinafter Sharma).
Regarding claims 1, 8 and 15, Albrecht discloses a computer-implemented method comprising:
Displaying, on a manager device, a selection of groups of members associated with a manager device (group management server, hosting the groups information shown by software of the group management [Albrecht; ¶50-54; Figs. 3A-3B and associated text]);
retrieving, responsive to selection of one group of the groups of members associated with the manager device, group objects associated with the one group that is selected (retrieved user information from the group, including device and identifiers [Albrecht; ¶50-54; Figs. 3A-3B and associated text]);
determining whether the members of the group selected are selected to be unassigned (users and bots may be added or removed based on the creation, termination and changes to one or more communication groups [Albrecht; ¶50-54; Figs. 3A-3B and associated text]);
displaying, on the manager device, responsive to determining that the members of the group selected are to remain assigned, a list of members of the group selected (show the users in each selected group [Albrecht; ¶50-54; Figs. 3A-3B and associated text]);
receiving, on the manager device, a selection of one member of the list of the group selected (selected the user to modify, removed, changes [Albrecht; ¶50-54; Figs. 3A-3B and associated text]);
determining whether the one member selected is assigned (moved or modify the selected user [Albrecht; ¶50-54; Figs. 3A-3B and associated text]);
creating, responsive to determining that the one member selected is unassigned, a unique identifier associated the group objects and the one member selected (assigned user in each group a unique identifier, may be a member of any number of data structures. Data structures may include service IDs or identifiers for any user nodes as well. Service IDs may be anything, including a user name, group messaging ID, and/or email address, or anything else that assists in uniquely identifying a user or user node [Albrecht; ¶50-54, 91-98; Figs. 3A-3B, 10 and associated text]);
displaying the unique identifier (the identifier is seen by different services [Albrecht; ¶50-54, 91-98; Figs. 3A-3B, 10 and associated text]). Albrecht does not explicilty discloses displaying the unique identifier; and assigning, responsive to a managed device scanning the unique identifier and based on confirmation to assign, the one member selected to the managed device; however, in a related and analogous art, Daniels teaches this feature.
In particular, Daniels teaches a user identification cards tied to a particular group, with QR codes, when scans will authenticate the user’s service and add the user to that particular service locations [Daniels; ¶25, 64-70; Figs. 1, 6-7 and associated texts]. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Albrecht in view of Daniels to user bar/QR codes to allow access to user’s data with the motivation for faster validation and allowing services.
Albrecht-Daniels combination discloses determine members and allowing members access services using cards with QR codes. Albrecht-Daniels combination does not explicilty discloses displaying on one of the manager device and the remote display panel, the unique identifier; and scanning the unique identifier displayed on one of the manager device and the remote display panel; however, in a related and analogous art, Sharman teaches these features.
In particular, Sharman teaches generating of QR codes, displaying on different devices in different networks, one can scan the QR codes from different devices to join a group [Sharman; ¶62-70; Figs. 6-7 and associated texts]. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Albrecht-Daniels combination to display identifier on various devices in view of Sharma with the motivation to allow easier access and convenances as it would be easier to carry the identifier on devices such as mobile phone.
With respect to claim 15, querying, responsive to a selection of a settings button on a technician device, groups associated with a location (determine the group based on an event, query or other communication an appropriate communication to group or selected members of the group. In some implementations service provides the original recorded message to the group in order to inform other user nodes of the message sent [Albrecht; ¶6, 50-54, 91-98; Figs. 3A-3B, 10 and associated text]).
Regarding claims 4, 11 and 18, Albrecht-Daniels-Sharman combination discloses further comprising: unassigning, responsive to determining that the members of the group selected are to be unassigned, all members of the group selected (selected the user to add, remove, modify [Albrecht; ¶50-54; Figs. 3A-3B and associated text]).
Regarding claims 5, 12 and 19, Albrecht-Daniels-Sharman combination discloses further comprising: unassigning, responsive to determining selection to unassign has been selected, the one member selected (selected the user to add, remove, modify [Albrecht; ¶50-54; Figs. 3A-3B and associated text]).
Regarding claims 6 and 13, Albrecht-Daniels-Sharman combination discloses wherein the list of members of the group selected are students (user can be of any occupations [Albrecht; ¶50-54; Figs. 3A-3B and associated text]).
Regarding claims 7, 14 and 20, Albrecht-Daniels-Sharman combination discloses wherein the unique identifier is one of a bar code, a QR code, and a unique code (Bar/QR codes [Daniels; ¶25, 64-70; Figs. 1, 6-7 and associated texts]. The motivation for faster validation and allowing services.
Internet Communications
Applicant is encouraged to submit a written authorization for Internet communications (PTO/SB/439, http://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf) in the instant patent application to authorize the examiner to communicate with the applicant via email. The authorization will allow the examiner to better practice compact prosecution. The written authorization can be submitted via one of the following methods only: (1) Central Fax which can be found in the Conclusion section of this Office action; (2) regular postal mail; (3) EFS WEB; or (4) the service window on the Alexandria campus. EFS web is the recommended way to submit the form since this allows the form to be entered into the file wrapper within the same day (system dependent). Written authorization submitted via other methods, such as direct fax to the examiner or email, will not be accepted. See MPEP § 502.03.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 DAO Q HO whose telephone number is (571)270-5998. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Jeffrey Nickerson can be reached on (469) 295-9235. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DAO Q HO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2432