Detailed Action
1. This Office Action is responsive to the Amendment filed 04/29/2026. Claims 1, 3, 7-12, 14-15, 17 have been amended. Claim 21 has been added as a new claim. Claims 1-21 are pending for examination.
Double Patenting
2. 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.
3. 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:
determining that a second computing device is located at the premises and that a third computing device is located outside the premises;
determining, based on the second device being located at the premises, a first message for the second device;
determining, based on the third computing device being located outside the premises, a second message for the third computing device, wherein the second message is different, in content, from the first message;
transmitting, by the first computing device to the second computing device located at the premises, the first message; and
transmitting, by the first computing device to the third computing device located outside of the premises, the second message.
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.
4. 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 § 112
5. 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.
6. Claim 21 is 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.
7. Claim 21 recites “determining the first message for the second device [located at the premises] further based on the third device being located outside the premises”, however, the specification does not provide adequate support to perform the claimed function of “determining the first message for the second device further based on the third device being located outside the premises”. The specification discloses at [0061] that “For example, during a break-in, a home security service can determine the location of mobile devices. If the mobile device location corresponds to the same location as the break-in, an urgent alarm can be sent to the user’s mobile device or other registered device (i.e., the first message is sent to the second device is at the premises). Such alarms have particular use during burglar entry into the home in the night. Further, the service may alert the police station to the break-in and the alert may also inform the police that the house is currently occupied (i.e., the second message is sent to the third device outside the premises)” and at [0062] that “For example, during a break-in at home, if parents are out at a meal while children are at home, the system can assess the locations of mobile devices and determine that children are home alone, or with a babysitter, during a break-in. The system can then send urgent alerts to the parents and to the police (i.e., only send the second message to the third devices outside the premises)”. In both examples, the specification does not demonstrate that application has made an invention that achieves the claimed function “determining the first message for the second device further based on the third device being located outside the premises” because the invention is not described with sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
8. 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.
9. Claims 1-3, 6-10, 13-17 and 20 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lavian (US 2006/0271695 A1), in view of Gould et al. (US 2009/0248828 A1), hereinafter “Gould”.
10. 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 located at the premises, the first message (i.e., detection of flood may result in the transmission of a notice to the owner of the property and/or to his neighbor [in the same building/premises) ([0047]); and
transmitting, by the first computing device to a third computing device located outside of the premises, the second message (i.e., a security event may be reported to the police and/or to one or more persons (for example, security alarm company)) ([0047]).
Lavian does not explicitly discloses “determining that a second computing device is located at the premises and that a third computing device is located outside of the premises; determining, based on the second computing device being located at the premises, a first message for the second computing device; determining, based on the third computing device being located outside the premises, a second message for the third computing device, wherein the second message is different, in content, from the first message”.
Gould discloses “determining that a second computing device is located at the premises and that a third computing device is located outside of the premises ([0139]: distribution of emergency alert messages and associated data to the various different client devices via the cable and IP networks based on the relevance of the EAM to a particular subscriber’s locations of interest, which may include: (i) the home or primary premises (i.e., second device located the premises), (ii) their current location (which may be the same or different than (i)), and/or (iii) locations of interest such as the location of their second or vacation home, office, friends, family, etc. (i.e., third device outside of the premises); [0192]: for example, when a tornado alert message is issued, the MSO using the EAS/CEAS/VRS infrastructure can rapidly access the client location database to determine which device IDs and/or IP/MAC addresses to route the EAM to); determining, based on the second computing device being located at the premises, a first message for the second computing device; determining, based on the third computing device being located outside the premises, a second message for the third computing device, wherein the second message is different, in content, from the first message ([0192]: certain devices 110, 221 in the directly affected area [i.e., at the premises] may receive an alert or warning, while other devices 110, 221, which are less proximate [i.e., outside the premises] receive a less urgent message, a notice or “watch”; [0260]: broader distribution of EAMs (such as to the friends or family via e-mail), including the ability to personalize or add information to the EAM such as text or pictures)”.
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 Gould into Lavian’s to achieve the claimed invention to enable the system to distribute EAMs via different networks to certain devices at subscriber’s locations of interest including the home or primary premises and the second or vacation home, office, friends, family, etc. (Gould, [0139]).
11. As to claim 2, Lavian-Gould 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) (Lavian, [0064]).
12. As to claim 3, Lavian-Gould teach the method of claim 1, wherein the first notification rule is 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) (Lavian, [0047]).
13. As to claim 6, Lavian-Gould teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the first source is an appliance in a home (Lavian, [0032]: home automation appliances; [0033]: air-conditioner units, microwave ovens, refrigerators, computers, lights, washing machines, hot tubs, dishwashers appliances, etc.).
14. As to claim 7, Lavian-Gould teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the transmitting the first 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) (Lavian, [0037] and [0047]).
15. 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.
16. Claims 4-5, 11-12 and 18-19 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lavian-Gould, and further in view of Jung et al. (US 2012/0096403 A1), hereinafter “Jung”.
17. As to claim 4, Lavian-Gould 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-Gould’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.
18. As to claim 5, Lavian-Gould 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-Gould’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.
19. 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.
Response to Arguments
20. Applicant’s arguments filed 04/29/2026 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground of rejection.
21. 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.
22. 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
Prosecution Insights