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 .
Double Patenting
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 § 2146 et seq. 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 filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual 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/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 8, 15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,118,872. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are arguably broader than claims 1, 8, 15 of U.S. Patent 12,118,872 which encompasses the same metes, bounds and limitations. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was first filed to eliminate the limitations of the narrower claims, since it has been held that omission of an element and its function and a combination where the remaining elements perform the same functions as before involves only routine skill in the art. See in re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184.
Claims 1-20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 8, 15 of U.S. Patent No. 10,643,457. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are arguably broader than claims 1, 8, 15 of U.S. Patent 10,643,457 which encompasses the same metes, bounds and limitations. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was first filed to eliminate the limitations of the narrower claims, since it has been held that omission of an element and its function and a combination where the remaining elements perform the same functions as before involves only routine skill in the art. See in re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Howie et al. (US 2018/0205751) in view of Hulan (US 2015/0208220).
Regarding claims 1, 8, 15, Howie discloses a system for facilitating a response to an event notifying signal (fig. 1), the system comprising: a network monitoring module configured to monitor signals received over a data network for a presence of one or more event notifying signals indicative of a relevant incident within a geographic area (page 2, [0025-0029]); an assessment module configured to: determine that the relevant incident could impact any persons or property of an enterprise or organization within the geographic area (page 2, [0025-0029]), and determine a group of people of the enterprise or organization who could be impacted by the relevant incident (page 2, [0025-0029]).
Howie discloses all the limitations set forth above but fails to explicitly disclose a resource response module configured to send a response to a computing device associated with each person of the group of people, wherein the response providing an indication of the relevant incident.
However, Hulan discloses a resource response module configured to send a response to a computing device associated with each person of the group of people, wherein the response providing an indication of the relevant incident (high frequency) (page 4, [0034]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was first filed to incorporate the features of Hulan within the system of Howie in order to control operations of an enterprise thereby improving the reliability of the system.
Regarding claims 2, 9, 16, Howie discloses wherein the group of people is a first group of people, wherein the assessment module is further configured to: determine a specific property of the enterprise or organization that could be impacted by the relevant incident and determine a second group of people of the enterprise or organization who can secure the specific property before the relevant incident impacts the specific property; and wherein the resource response module is further configured to send a second response to a second computing device associated with each person of the second group of people, wherein the second response providing the indication of the relevant incident and an indication of the specific property (page 2, [0025-0029]).
Regarding claims 3, 10, 17, Howie discloses wherein the property is within a threshold distance from the relevant incident (page 2, [0025-0026]).
Regarding claims 4, 11, 18, Howie discloses wherein the group of people is within a threshold distance from the relevant incident (page 2, [0025-0026]).
Regarding claims 5, 12, 19, Howie discloses wherein the resource response module is further configured to: receive a status update from a person of the group of people, and
request a status update from the remaining people of the group of people (page 2, [0025-0029]).
Regarding claims 6, 13, 20, Howie discloses wherein the resource response module is further configured to send a status update on the relevant incident to the computing device associated with each person of the group of people (page 2, [0025-0026]).
Regarding claims 7, 14, Howie discloses wherein the relevant incident is a security related issue or an environmental related issue (page 2, [0025-0026]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Nokhoudian et al. (US 2015/0358794) discloses community……system.
Shinar et al. (US 2016/0058429) discloses pregnancy state monitoring.
Fukushima et al. (US 5,579,370) discloses…………….
Pfeffer (US 2009/0284348) discloses incident….system.
Billeter (US 2021/0027229) discloses event…….method thereof.
Kenton et al. (US 2010/0325107) discloses systems…..conversations.
Baughman et al. (US 2017/0091617) discloses incident…..data.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL PREVIL whose telephone number is (571)272-2971. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 9:30 AM -6:00 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, Wang Quan-Zhen can be reached at 571 272 3114. 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.
DP
December 10, 2025
/DANIEL PREVIL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2685