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 .
Claim status
This action is in response to applicant filed on 06/05/2026.
Claims 1, 3-6, 11, 13, 14, 17 and 19 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 are pending for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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) 1-3, 5, 7-18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herron (US 6,042,383) in view of Lai et al. (US 2022/0155731)
Regarding claim 1: Herron disclose a purpose-built task management appliance for managing routine tasks by a person living with a cognitive, visual, or other sensory impairment (claim 1), comprising:
a first display configured to show an indication of the time, day, and/or date (fig. 6: "58");
a second display on which a plurality of tasks are presented (col. 4: lines 46-48; col. 5: line 62 - col. 6: line 1; fig. 6);
a plurality of buttons, each button being associated with a task; (Fig. 1, item 16, Col. 3, Lines 9-20)
wherein the purpose-built task management appliance is configured to output an alarm at a pre-determined time while simultaneously providing an indication of the task to be performed by the person living with a cognitive, visual, or other sensory impairment (col. 6: lines 8-17); and
wherein the task management appliance is configured to output visual signals to indicate progress (fig. 6: "52, 54"), the visual signals being attributed to each of the plurality of tasks and comprising:
a signal indicating that a task is outstanding (fig. 6: "52, 54");
a signal indicating that a task is in progress (fig. 6: "52, 54"); and
a signal indicating that a task has been completed (fig. 7: "62");
wherein the visual signals to indicate progress are configured to be toggled by the person living with a cognitive, visual, or other sensory impairment (col. 6: lines 30-37; fig. 7).
Herron does not explicitly disclose the visual signals are configure to toggle from outstanding to in progress and/or in progress to completed when a button of the plurality of buttons is pressed.
In analogous art regarding task management systems, Lai disclose the visual signals are configure to toggle from outstanding to in progress and/or in progress to completed when a ledbutton of the plurality of buttons is pressed.(¶0047)
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to the one of the ordinary skill in the art to include the feature of the visual signals are configure to toggle from outstanding to in progress and/or in progress to completed when a button of the plurality of buttons is pressed, as disclose by Lai, to the system of Herron. The motivation is to keep the user engage and reward the user when task is completed.
Regarding claim 2: The combination of Herron and Lai disclose the purpose-built task management appliance of claim 1, wherein the alarm comprises an audible, visual, and/or haptic notification (Herron: Col. 4, Lines 40-46).
Regarding claim 3: The combination of Herron and Lai disclose the purpose-built task management appliance of claim 1, further comprising light source, wherein the light source is configured to output the visual signals and illuminate the plurality of buttons.(Herron: 0047). The combination of Herron and Lai does not explicitly disclose a plurality of LEDS. However it disclose a light source and LED are super well known example of light source Therefore, before t the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to the one of the ordinary skill in the art to t include a plurality of LEDs as the light source of the combination of Herron and Lai, since having a limited universe of potential options (light source), the selection of any particular option (plurality of LED’s) would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Jones, 412 F.2d 241, 162 USPO 224 (COPA 1969). Since either option would provide the same predictable result of (supply light), either option would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill.
Regarding claim 5: The combination of Herron and Lai disclose the purpose-built task management appliance of claim 4, wherein at least one the visual signal is provided on, at, or clearly corresponds to one or more of the plurality of buttons (Herron: Col. 3, Lines 9-20)
Regarding claim 7: The combination of Herron and Lai disclose the purpose-built task management appliance of claim 1, wherein the second display on which a plurality of tasks can be displayed is customizable.(Herron: Col. 4, Lines 29-46)
Regarding claim 8: The combination of Herron and Lai disclose the purpose-built task management appliance of claim 1, wherein the second display on which a plurality of tasks can be displayed comprises a paper, card, or polymer sheet on which a task can be written.(Herron: Fig. 1: Notice paper sheet template)
Regarding claim 9: The combination of Herron and Lai disclose the purpose-built task management appliance of claim 1, configured such that the pre-determined time attributed to the at least one task item is customizable.(Herron: Col. 4, Lines 27-46)
Regarding claim 10: The combination of Herron and Lai disclose the purpose-built task management appliance of claim 1, wherein the first display and/or the second display are provided on a face of the task management appliance. (Herron: Fig. 6)
Regarding claim 11: Herron disclose a task management system for managing routine tasks by a person living with a cognitive, visual, or other sensory impairment, comprising a purpose-built hub (fig. 3: "10") and an auxiliary component (fig. 3: "36");
the purpose-built hub comprising:
a display configured to show an indication of the time, day, and/or date (fig. 6: "58");
a task display on which a plurality of tasks can be displayed (col. 4: lines 46-48; col. 5: line 62 - col. 6: line 1; fig. 6);
a plurality of buttons, each button being associated with a task; (Fig. 1, item 16, Col. 3, Lines 9-20)
wherein the purpose-built hub is configured to output an alarm at a pre- determined time and simultaneously provide an indication of the task to be performed (col. 6: lines 8-17);
wherein the purpose-built hub and/or the auxiliary component is configured to output visual signals to indicate progress (fig. 6: "52, 54"), the signals being attributed to each of the plurality of tasks and comprising:
a signal indicating that a task is outstanding (fig. 6: "52, 54");
a signal indicating that a task is in progress (fig. 6: "52, 54");
a signal indicating that a task has been completed (fig. 7: "62") ;
wherein the visual signals to indicate progress are configured to be toggled by the person living with a cognitive, visual, or other sensory impairment (col. 6: lines 30-37; fig. 7); and
the auxiliary component (col. 3: lines 4-8; fig. 3, 4) being configured to receive and/or transmit information from/to the purpose-built hub, and further comprising a display (fig. 3: "PC") configured to show an indication of the time, day, and/or date (fig. 3: "PC").
Herron does not explicitly disclose the visual signals are configure to toggle from outstanding to in progress and/or in progress to completed when a button of the plurality of buttons is pressed.
In analogous art regarding task management systems, Lai disclose the visual signals are configure to toggle from outstanding to in progress and/or in progress to completed when a ledbutton of the plurality of buttons is pressed.(¶0047)
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to the one of the ordinary skill in the art to include the feature of the visual signals are configure to toggle from outstanding to in progress and/or in progress to completed when a button of the plurality of buttons is pressed, as disclose by Lai, to the system of Herron. The motivation is to keep the user engage and reward the user when task is completed.
Regarding claim 12: The combination of Herron and Lai disclose the task management system of claim 11, wherein the auxiliary component is configured to output an alert to tell the person living with a cognitive impairment to go to the purpose-built hub. (HerronCol. 3, Lines 25-33).
Regarding claim 13 The combination of Herron and Lai disclose the task management system of claim 12, wherein the alert is an audible, visual, and/or haptic notification. (Herron: Col. 4, Lines 40-46).
Regarding claim 14: The combination of Herron and Lai disclose the task management system of claim 12, wherein the auxiliary component is configured to output the alert simultaneously with an alarm of the purpose-built hub. (Herron: Col. 4, Lines 27-46: alarm are programmable hence, hence, the user can set up the alarms to go out simultaneously)
Regarding claim 15: The combination of Herron and Lai disclose the task management system of claim 11, wherein the purpose-built hub and/or auxiliary component comprise a transmitter and receiver, between which information from a user input can be transferred (HerronCol. 3, Lines 4-8, Figs, 3, 4)
Regarding claim 16: The combination of Herron and Lai disclose the task management system of claim 11, wherein the alarm comprises is an audible, visual, and/or haptic notification. (Herron: Col. 4, Lines 40-46).
Regarding claim 17: The combination of Herron and Lai disclose the task management system of claim 11, further comprising light source, wherein the light source is configured to output the visual signals and illuminate the plurality of buttons.(Herron: 0047). The combination of Herron and Lai does not explicitly disclose a plurality of LEDS. However it disclose a light source and LED are super well known example of light source Therefore, before t the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to the one of the ordinary skill in the art to t include a plurality of LEDs as the light source of the combination of Herron and Lai, since having a limited universe of potential options (light source), the selection of any particular option (plurality of LED’s) would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Jones, 412 F.2d 241, 162 USPO 224 (COPA 1969). Since either option would provide the same predictable result of (supply light), either option would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill.
Regarding claim 18: The combination of Herron and Lai disclose the task management system of claim 11, disclose the task management appliance of claim 11, wherein the purpose-built hub and/or the auxiliary component comprises a plurality of buttons, each button being associated with a task, the buttons being configured to turn off the alarm for an associated task when pressed.(Fig. 1, item 16, Col. 3, Lines 9-20)
Regarding claim 20: The combination of Herron and Lai disclose the task management system of claim 11, wherein the task display on which a plurality of tasks can be displayed is customizable.(Col. 4, Lines 29-46)
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herron (US 6,042,383) in view of Lai et al. (US 2022/0155731) and further in view of Ma (US 2022/0345563)
Regarding claim 4: The combination of Herron and Lai disclose the purpose-built task management appliance of claim 1, wherein the purpose- built task management appliance comprises a transmitter and receiver (Herron: Fig. 5, item 38 define a communication link to exchange communication both ways, hence inherently disclose a transmitter and receiver to communicate both ways), arranged to send and receive information directly between the purpose-built task management appliance and an auxiliary component (Herron: Fig. 5, item 36) but does not explicitly disclose that is configured to output the alert simultaneously with the alarm of the purpose-built task management appliance.
In analogous art regarding simultaneous alerts, Ma disclose a watch and phone that simultaneously perform and alert. (¶0132).
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to the one of the ordinary skill in the art to include the feature of output the alert simultaneously with the alarm of the purpose-built task management appliance, as disclose by Ma, to the system of the combination of Herron and Lai. The motivation is to add redundancy to the alert in order to increase the chances of getting the users attention.
Claim(s) 6 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herron (US 6,042,383) in view of Lai et al. (US 2022/0155731) and further in view of Crowley et al. (US 2021/0068714).
Regarding claim 6 and 19: The combination of Herron and Lai disclose disclose the purpose-built task management appliance/System of claim 3 and 17, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the visual signal is a color signal, provided by a color LED.
In analogous art regarding visual display, Crowley disclose wherein the visual signal is a color signal, provided by a color LED.(¶0045, ¶0323)
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to the one of the ordinary skill in the art to include the feature of a color signal, provided by a color LED, as disclose by the combination of Herron and Lai, to the visual signal of Herron since having a limited universe of potential options (visual signals) the selection of any particular option (color signal, provided by a color LED) would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Jones, 412 F.2d 241, 162 USPO 224 (COPA 1969). Since either option would provide the same predictable result of (displaying visual signal), either option would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) 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.
Conclusion
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 OMAR CASILLASHERNANDEZ whose telephone number is (571)270-5432. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30AM-4:30PM.
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, Davetta Goins can be reached at (571) 272-2957. 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.
/OMAR CASILLASHERNANDEZ/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2689
Prosecution Insights