Detailed Action
1. This Office Action is responsive to the Preliminary Amendment filed 09/20/2024. Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Priority
2. Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 365(c) is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The information disclosure statements (IDSes) submitted on 07/03/2025 and 09/12/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Specification
4. The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
5. The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
On page 1, under section “Cross-Reference to Related Applications”, the cited copending applications (18/152,596) should be updated with current statuses such as U.S. Patent Application Serial No., the filing date, U.S. Patent No., and the issued date.
Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
6. The nonstatutory 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 nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims 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); 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 nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) 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 www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
7. Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Application No. 17/340,800, now U.S. Patent No. 11,580,498.
For example:
Instant application 18/891,279
U.S. Patent No. 11,580,498
Claim 1. A method comprising:
receiving, by a first computing device from a first source of a plurality of sources at a premises, a first notification comprising data for an application associated with the first computing device;
based on a first notification rule corresponding to the first notification:
transmitting, by the first computing device to a second computing device, data comprising a message for a user of the second computing device, wherein the first notification rule indicates at least one treatment for the first notification from the first source; and
transmitting, by the first computing device to a third computing device outside of the premises, a message for a user of the third computing device.
Claim 1. A method comprising:
storing, by a computing device, different notification rules corresponding to different sources that are located at different premises, wherein each of the notification rules indicates at least one notification condition, and a corresponding notification treatment, for notifications from a corresponding source, wherein the at least one notification condition comprises a location of a recipient of a corresponding notification;
receiving a first notification from a first source; and
implementing, based on a first notification rule corresponding to the first source, a notification treatment for the first application;
wherein the first notification comprises data for two different applications associated with the computing device, and the implementing the notification treatment comprises implementing a first treatment for a first application and a second treatment for a second application.
8. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,580,498 substantially contain every element of claim 1 of the instant application and thus anticipate the claims of the instant application. Claims of the instant application therefore are not patently distinct from the earlier patent claims and as such are unpatentable over obvious-type double patenting. A later application claim is not patently distinct from an earlier claim if the later claim is anticipated by the earlier claim.
“A later patent claim is not patentably distinct from an earlier patent claim if the later claim obvious over, or anticipated by, the earlier claim. In re Longi, 759 F.2d at 896, 225 USPQ at 651 (affirming a holding of obviousness-type double patenting because the claims at issue were obvious over claims in four prior art patents); In re Berg, 140 F.3d at 1437, 46 USPQ2d at 1233 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (affirming a holding obviousness-type double patenting where a patent application claim to a genus is anticipated by a patent claim to a species within that genus)”. ELI LILLY AND COMPANY vs. BARR LABORATORIES INC., United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, ON PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC (DECIDED: May 30, 2001).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
9. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of application for patent in the United States.
10. Claims 1-3, 6-10, 13-17 and 20 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being by Lavian (US 2006/0271695 A1).
11. As to claim 1, Lavian teaches a method comprising:
receiving, by a first computing device (i.e., APPLICATION SERVER 130) from a first source of a plurality of sources at a premises, a first notification comprising data for an application associated with the first computing device (i.e., events/notifications (such as burglary, fire, detection of flood, etc.) originating from gateways such as GATEWAY 120 may be reported over TCP/IP communication path to APPLICATION SERVER 130) ([0047]);
based on a first notification rule corresponding to the first notification (i.e., based on [events-related] configuration and/or preset parameters of APPLICATION SERVER 130, APPLICATION SERVER 130 may send event-related message(s) to users, service providers and/or to maintenance personnel, by using, for example, emails and/or SMS message(s)) ([0047]):
transmitting, by the first computing device to a second computing device, data comprising a message for a user of the second computing device, wherein the first notification rule indicates at least one treatment for the first notification from the first source (i.e., a security event may be reported to the police and/or to one more persons (for example to the property owner)) ([0047]); and
transmitting, by the first computing device to a third computing device outside of the premises, a message for a user of the third computing device (i.e., detection of flood may result in the transmission of a notice to the owner of the property and/or to his neighbor and/or to a fire brigade station and so on) ([0047]).
12. As to claim 2, Lavian teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising storing, by the first computing device, different notification rules corresponding to the plurality of sources at the premises, wherein the different notification rules comprise different rules, for a same sender, based on different locations (i.e., an event list of events/notifications (such as burglary, fire, detection of flooded, etc.) of particular interest (events of particular significance, consequence or implication) may be predefined in APPLICATION SERVER 130 for each GATEWAY 120 with which it is in communication ) ([0064]).
13. As to claim 3, Lavian teach the method of claim 1, further comprising selecting the at least one treatment based on a sender of the first notification (i.e., detection of a security/burglary event (by door/window sensors), transmit a notice to the police and property owner; detect of a flood (by flood detectors), transmit a notice to the property owner and neighbor/fire brigade station) ([0047]).
14. As to claim 6, Lavian teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the first source is an appliance in a home (i.e., [0032]: home automation appliances; [0033]: air-conditioner units, microwave ovens, refrigerators, computers, lights, washing machines, hot tubs, dishwashers appliances, etc.).
15. As to claim 7, Lavian teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the transmitting the message comprises determining that a sender of the first notification is located at a location identified in the first notification rule (i.e., based on configuration and/or preset parameters [of event type], upon detection of an intruder [security event type by glass breaking sensors, motion detection sensors] the application server may automatically call the police; upon detection of flood [flood event type by flood detection sensors], the application server may call a fire brigade, and so on) ([0037] and [0047]).
16. As to claims 8-10, 13-17 and 20, claims 8-10, 13-17 and 20 are corresponding computing device and non-transitory computer readable medium claims that recite similar limitations as of method claims 1-3 and 6-7 and do not contain any additional limitations with respect to novelty and/or inventive steps; therefore, they are rejected under the same rationale.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
17. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
18. Claims 4-5, 11-12 and 18-19 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lavian, in view of Jung et al. (US 2012/0096403 A1), hereinafter “Jung”.
19. As to claim 4, Lavian teaches the method of claim 1, but does not explicitly teaches “causing rearrangement of displayed notifications before a recipient user accessing the displayed notifications”.
In an analogous art, Jung teaches “causing rearrangement of displayed notifications before a recipient user accessing the displayed notifications” (i.e., display a list of messages [notifications] transmitted and/or received by the mobile terminal 100 and include object related information, such that the list of messages are arranged according to a prescribed reference) ([0275]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to incorporate the teachings of Jung, into Lavian’s to achieve “causing rearrangement of displayed notifications before a recipient user accessing the displayed notifications” to allow the messages/notifications being arranged and displayed to the user in the order of their prescribed reference, which helps the users focus on their most important message/notification and thus improves responsiveness, productivity and effectiveness.
20. As to claim 5, Lavian teaches the method of claim 1, but does not explicitly teach “causing rearrangement of displayed notifications based on a change in geographic location of a sender of the first notification”.
In an analogous art, Jung teaches “causing rearrangement of displayed notifications based on a change in geographic location of a sender of the first notification” (i.e., display a list of messages/notifications transmitted and/or received by the mobile terminal 100 and include object related information, such that the list of messages are arranged according to a prescribed reference, wherein the prescribed reference can be a type of object [read as sender] corresponding to the object related information, an object position or place, or a distance from the current position of the mobile terminal 100) ([0275]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to incorporate the teachings of Jung, into Lavian’s to achieve “causing rearrangement of displayed notifications based on a change in geographic location of a sender of the first notification” to allow the messages/notifications being arranged and displayed to the user in the order of their prescribed reference, which helps the users focus on their most important message/notification and thus improves responsiveness, productivity and effectiveness.
21. As to claims 11-12 and 18-19, claims 11-12 and 18-19 are corresponding computing device and non-transitory computer readable medium claims that recite similar limitations as of method claims 4-5 and do not contain any additional limitations with respect to novelty and/or inventive steps; therefore, they are rejected under the same rationale.
22. Further references of interest are cited on Form PTO-892, which is an attachment to this Office Action.
23. A shortened statutory period for reply to this action is set to expire THREE (3) months from the mailing date of this communication. See 37 CFR 1.134.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QUANG N NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571) 272-3886.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, KAMAL B. DIVECHA, can be reached at (571) 272-5863. The fax phone number for the organization 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.
/QUANG N NGUYEN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2441