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
As required by M.P.E.P. 609(c), the Applicant's submissions of the Information Disclosure Statement is acknowledged by the examiner and the cited references have been considered in the examination of the claims now pending. As required by M.P.E.P. 609 C(2), a copy of the PTOL-1449 initialed and dated by the examiner is attached to the instant office action.
Applicant’s Information Disclosure Statement has been received, entered into the record, and considered. See attached form PTO-1449.
Claims 1-13 are pending for examination.
Double Patenting
The non statutory 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 non statutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form 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 http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-13 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-13 of U.S. Patent No. 12022371 B2.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, but they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are both exhibiting similar social media data records representing an emergency event and computes a corresponding severity metric.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to reasonably interpret the limitations of the instant application, which is the fact The Same Invention in Claims 1-13 of US Patent Application No. 18/747934 and Claims 1-13 of US Patent No. 12022371 B2, since they are utilized the similar method for social media data records representing an emergency event and computes a corresponding severity metric. It is obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to remove steps or elements from a previously filed claim absent evidence of criticality of the step. The rationale why a modification such as removal of steps does not appear to render the prior art unsatisfactory for its intended purpose. As such the removal is obvious.
The claims are rejected under obvious type double patenting because although different they are alleged not patentably distinct, they have a common inventor. The invention is also commonly owned by the same assignee. at the time of invention.
This is an obviousness-type double patenting rejection. Further claim tables are provided below.
The Claims 1-13, of current application and U.S. Patent No. 12022371 B2 are compared as follows, showing the obviousness of the teachings of the patent to the claimed invention:
Current Application
US Patent No. 12022371 B2
Claim 1 (for example):
Claim 1 (for example):
A system for managing electronic data representing emergency alerts comprising: a computing device associated with an asset, said computing device configured to transmit asset location information corresponding to the location of the asset;
a server configured to: receive from the computing device, the asset location information; receive from a server, one or more data records representing an event;
generate a control signal representing the one or more data records, the control signal comprising an alert; compute event location information based on the one or more data records,
said event location information comprising the location of the event; compute a proximity metric for the control signal based on the asset location information and the event location information,
said proximity metric comprising a distance between the event and the asset; compute a severity metric for the control signal based on the one or more data records; compute a confidence metric for the alert, the confidence metric representing a probability that the event occurred or is occurring; determine whether or not to transmit the control signal to the computing device based on the confidence metric, the proximity metric and the severity metric; and if the confidence metric exceeds a predetermined threshold and the proximity metric or the severity metric exceeds the predetermined threshold, transmit the control signal to the computing device
A system for managing electronic data representing emergency alerts comprising: a computing device associated with an asset, said computing device configured to transmit asset location information corresponding to the location of the asset;
a server configured to: receive from the computing device, the asset location information; receive from a social media server, one or more social media records representing an event;
generate a control signal representing the one or more social media records, the control signal comprising an alert; compute event location information based on the one or more social media records,
said event location information comprising the location of the event; compute a proximity metric for the control signal based on the asset location information and the event location information,
said proximity metric comprising a distance between the event and the asset; compute a severity metric for the control signal based on the one or more social media records; compute a confidence metric for the alert, the confidence metric representing a probability that the event occurred or is occurring; determine whether or not to transmit the control signal to the computing device based on the confidence metric, the proximity metric and the severity metric; and if the confidence metric exceeds a predetermined threshold and the proximity metric or the severity metric exceeds the predetermined threshold, transmit the control signal to the computing device.
In addition, although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the scope of each claim in the present application is essentially identical to the scope of a corresponding claim in the instant application and US Patent No. 12022371 B2, as indicated in the above claim diagram (see above for details).
Also, it is noted, claims 1-13 of current application and claims 1-13 of U.S. Patent No. 12022371 B2 are exhibiting similar method social media data records representing an emergency event and computes a corresponding severity metric, similarly.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-13 would be allowable if rewritten and/or amending to remedy the double patenting rejections and/or filling “Terminal Declaimer” to remedy the “Obvious Double Patent”.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
In regards to Independent Claim 1, BRI (broadest reasonable interpretation) in light of the specification, Examiner finds the claimed invention is patentably distinct from the prior art of record, which sets forth in the following:
Tierney et al., (US Patent No. 12022371 B2) relates discloses management of electronic data representing emergency alerts. The system includes a server that receives social media data records representing an emergency event and computes a corresponding severity metric. If the severity metric exceeds a threshold, the server transmits a control signal from a server to a computing device. The control signal can cause the computing device to control an alarm system, vehicle navigation system, automated email system, user interface, or automated messaging system.
However, Tierney fails to show “managing electronic data representing emergency alerts comprising: a computing device associated with an asset, said computing device configured to transmit asset location information corresponding to the location of the asset; a server configured to: receive from the computing device, the asset location information; receive from a server, one or more data records representing an event; generate a control signal representing the one or more data records, the control signal comprising an alert; compute event location information based on the one or more data records, said event location information comprising the location of the event; compute a proximity metric for the control signal based on the asset location information and the event location information, said proximity metric comprising a distance between the event and the asset; compute a severity metric for the control signal based on the one or more data records; compute a confidence metric for the alert, the confidence metric representing a probability that the event occurred or is occurring; determine whether or not to transmit the control signal to the computing device based on the confidence metric, the proximity metric and the severity metric; and if the confidence metric exceeds a predetermined threshold and the proximity metric or the severity metric exceeds the predetermined threshold, transmit the control signal to the computing device” … As claimed (supports in Para [0029]; [0032]; [0034]; [0039]; [0043]; [0049]; [0054]; [0057], for example).
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Tierney et al., (US Patent No. 12022371 B2), “Method and system for managing electronic data representing emergency alerts” (June 25, 2024) discloses management of electronic data representing emergency alerts. The system includes a server that receives social media data records representing an emergency event and computes a corresponding severity metric. If the severity metric exceeds a threshold, the server transmits a control signal from a server to a computing device. The control signal can cause the computing device to control an alarm system, vehicle navigation system, automated email system, user interface, or automated messaging system.
Communication
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DIANE D MIZRAHI whose telephone number is 571- 272-4079. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30-3:30 PM (7:30 - 4:30 p.m.).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Alison T. Slater can be reached on (571) 270-0375. The fax phone numbers for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned are (703) 872-9306 for regular communications and for After Final communication.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the receptionist whose telephone number is (571) 272-2600.
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.qov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll free).
/DIANE D MIZRAHI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2647
Diane.Mizrahi@USPTO.gov
Prosecution Insights