DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on September 21, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 21-38 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.
As noted below, the specific details of sending, by a requesting device, an initial request (i.e., “sending, by the requesting device, a request to configure a notification trigger…”), separate from a later reminder notification request (i.e., “requesting, by the request device, via a reminder notification request…”) wherein the initial request (i.e., “request to configure a notification trigger”) includes details comprising at least:
“…a set of conditions comprising (i) a first condition that identifies a target location that is one of the current location of the target device or a different location of the target device, and (ii) a second condition that defines whether to notify the requesting deice when the target device arrives at the target location or leaves the target location”, 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.
Although the specification describes an initial request (i.e., “authorization request”, see Fig. 5), separate from later reminder notification or location requests (see Fig. 5, ref. 550), the specification fails to describe the initial/authorization request as including the details on the set of conditions for triggering notification as currently claimed.
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 21-38 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.
As per claims 21, 27, and 33 the separate limitations and content of the “request to configure a notification trigger” and “a reminder notification request”, in the combination and manner recited by the claims, i.e.,
“…sending, by the requesting device, a reminder request to configure a notification trigger that is triggered by the target device, wherein the request includes: a target account identifier that identifies the target user device account, and a set of conditions comprising (i) a first condition that identifies a target location that is one of the current location of the target device or a different location of the target device, and (ii) a second condition that defines whether to notify the requesting device when the target device arrives at the target location or leaves the target location;
receiving, from a server, a first indication that acceptance is acknowledged by the target user device account to set up the notification trigger to share location information of the target device with the requesting user device account in accordance with the set of conditions;
requesting, by the requesting device, via a reminder notification request and in accordance with the first indication, the server to transmit to the target device, instructions including the target location and the second condition, the instructions causing the target device to store the set of conditions and locally monitor status of the target device to determine whether the set of conditions are satisfied…”,
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.
As noted in the remarks above, although the specification describes an initial request (i.e., “authorization request”, see Fig. 5), separate from later reminder notification or location requests (see Fig. 5, ref. 550) the specification fails to describe the initial/authorization request as including the details on the set of conditions for triggering notification as currently claimed.
Claims 22-26, 28-32, and 34-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, based on their dependency to claims 21, 29, and 33, respectively.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 21-38, though rejected under 35 U.S.C. §112(a), are allowed over the prior art for purposes of 35 U.S.C. §102 and §103.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The prior art does not teach or render obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention, in the specific combinations and manner recited within the claims, the separate limitations and content of the “request to configure a notification trigger” and “a reminder notification request”, in the combination and manner recited by Applicant’s claimed invention, i.e.,
“…sending, by the requesting device, a reminder request to configure a notification trigger that is triggered by the target device, wherein the request includes: a target account identifier that identifies the target user device account, and a set of conditions comprising (i) a first condition that identifies a target location that is one of the current location of the target device or a different location of the target device, and (ii) a second condition that defines whether to notify the requesting device when the target device arrives at the target location or leaves the target location;
receiving, from a server, a first indication that acceptance is acknowledged by the target user device account to set up the notification trigger to share location information of the target device with the requesting user device account in accordance with the set of conditions;
requesting, by the requesting device, via a reminder notification request and in accordance with the first indication, the server to transmit to the target device, instructions including the target location and the second condition, the instructions causing the target device to store the set of conditions and locally monitor status of the target device to determine whether the set of conditions are satisfied…”.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure (see PTO 892).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Brendan Higa whose telephone number is (571)272-5823. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, James Hwang can be reached at (571) 272-4036. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BRENDAN Y HIGA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2447
