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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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 claims at issue 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this 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/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 http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,142,130. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the instant application are generally broader than those of the patent. Thus, any invention meeting the limitations of the patent claims would necessarily meet those of the instant application as well. Further, all the claimed limitations recited in the present application are broader version and transparently found in the patent No. 12,142,130
Instant application
US Patent
1. A method comprising: performing, by a user device, data scrapping of one or more websites or databases; identifying, based on the data scrapping, an event is within a proximity of a device location of the user device; selecting, based on a subject matter of the event, a first device and a second device to output an alert, wherein the first device and the second device have a capability to output at least a first alert type and a second alert type; and outputting, from the first device and the second device, the alert using the first alert type or the second alert type to notify at least one user of the event.
1. A method comprising: receiving a selection by a user for a first device and a second device to output alerts for an event with a subject matter; performing, by a third device, data scrapping of one or more websites or databases; identifying, based on the data scrapping, an alert indicating the event is within a proximity of a device location of the first device or the second device; selecting, based on the subject matter of the event, the first device and the second device to output the alert to the user, wherein the first device and the second device have a capability to output at least a first alert type and a second alert type; determining a first location of the user is above a threshold distance from a second location of at least one of the first device or the second device; and outputting, from the first device and the second device, the first alert type at a pre-determined volume based on the first location of the user being above the threshold distance from the second location of at least one of the first device or the second device.
In regards to claim 1, the instant application is a broader version of claim 1 of the US patent and all the claim limitations are covered by claim 1 of the US Patent.
In regards to claim 8, the instant application is a broader version of claim 8 of the US patent and all the claim limitations are covered by claim 8 of the US Patent.
In regards to claim 15, the instant application is a broader version of claim 15 of the US patent and all the claim limitations are covered by claim 15 of the US Patent.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 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) 1-4, 6-11, 13-18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Touloumtzis (US 2016/0366085) in view of Martin et al (US 2020/0100084).
Per claim 1, 8 and 15, Touloumtzis teaches a method comprising (0013 and 0033 teaches computer implemented technique for providing event notification alerts to multiple computing devices associated with a user. 0040 teaches computer readable medium comprising processor and memory to perform the actions):
[performing, by a user device, data scrapping of one or more websites or databases];
identifying, [based on the data scrapping], an event is within a proximity of a device location of the user device (0013-0014 teaches identifying an event/alert happening. 0024 teaches query each computing device for each device’s current geographic location or GPS data. 0032 teaches the system may determine how close each device is relative to others);
selecting, based on a subject matter of the event, a first device and a second device to output an alert, wherein the first device and the second device have a capability to output at least a first alert type and a second alert type (0013-0014 teaches event notification alerts are provided to two or more computing devices associated with a user. 0015 teaches an appropriate type of alert associated with the notification is determined for each device. 0002 teaches notifications typically come in the form of an alert, such as an audible beep…and a visual indicator); and
outputting, from the first device and the second device, the alert using the first alert type or the second alert type to notify at least one user of the event (0015 teaches notification is sent to each computing device within the determined appropriate type of alert. 0033 teaches the prepared or determined notification is provided or sent to each device for the user to view).
But, Touloumtzis does not explicitly teach performing, by a user device, data scrapping of one or more websites or databases being in proximity to the user.
However, in an analogous art, Martin teaches automated retrieval and monitoring of web-based sources for emergency related information (abstract and paragraph 0005). Martin further teaches performing, by a user device, data scrapping of one or more websites or databases being in proximity to the user (0080 teaches data source may be social media websites or networks. 0081 teaches the server 302 retrieves web content with indication of emergency from data sources. 0083 teaches the step of detecting…comprise crawling content sources comprising social networking sites, broadcasting sites, RSS feeds, geographical data, maps, news and weather sites. 0046 teaches determining users in proximity to the emergency event). Therefore, before the effective filling date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to obtain emergency event information by scraping websites as taught by Martin, and to apply Touloumtzis’ context-aware, multi-device notification techniques to that information, because this merely combines a known method of acquiring event data with a known alerting system to achieve predictable result. This would further improve the timeliness and completeness of emergency notifications delivered to users, particularly for rapidly developing or widely distributed events within proximity of the user.
Per claim 2, 9 and 16, Touloumtzis teaches determining a visual, audio, and vibration capability of the first device and the second device (0002 teaches notifications typically come in the form of an alert, such as an audible beep…a vibration…and a visual indicator); and determining the first device and the second device have the capability to output the first alert type and the second alert type based on the visual, audio, and vibration capability (0030 teaches determining what kind of alert to send to which device…there are potentially as many types of notification as there are different combinations of possible audible noises, vibration patterns, and banner types. 0015 further teaches an appropriate type of alert associated with the notification is determined for each device).
Per claim 3, 10 and 17, Touloumtzis teaches determining a first location of the at least one user is above a threshold distance from a second location of at least one of the first device or the second device (0028-0029, 0024 determining threshold distance between devices and further teaches query each computing device for each device’s current location. 0032 teaches the system may determine how close each device is relative to others); and outputting, from the first device and the second device, the first alert type at a pre-determined volume based on the first location of the at least one user being above the threshold distance from the second location of at least one of the first device or the second device (0024 teaches audible alert may only be sent to one computing device if each device is within a relatively short distance and the same notification….could be sent to each device if each device is sufficiently far away. 0030 teaches alerts can have different volumes).
Per claim 4, 11 and 18, Touloumtzis teaches querying devices within a structure associated with the at least one user to collect information about the devices (0032 teaches the system queries each device for information. 0013 teaches event notification alerts are provided to two or more computing devices associated with a user); and identifying a notification capability of each of the devices based on the information (0030 teaches there are potentially as many types of notification as there are different combinations of possible audible noises, vibration patterns, and banner types. 0015 teaches an appropriate type of alert associated with the notification is determined for each device).
Per claim 6 and 13, Touloumtzis teaches receiving a selection by the at least one user for the first device and the second device to output alerts for the event with the subject matter (0031 teaches a user could choose particular notification settings for one or more situations); and outputting, from the first device and the second device, the first alert type and the second alert type based on the subject matter of the event (0015 teaches an appropriate type of alert associated with the notification is determined for each device. 0030 teaches different combinations of possible audible noises…vibration patterns…and banner types may be used depending on the notification context).
Per claim 7 and 14, Touloumtzis teaches wherein the first alert type includes one or more audible or visual patterns that indicate the subject matter of the event (0030 teaches there are potentially as many types of notification as there are different combinations of possible audible noises, vibration patterns, and banner types. 0015 teaches an appropriate type of alert associated with the notification is determined for each device).
Per claim 20, see rejection of claim 6 and 7.
Claim(s) 5, 12 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Touloumtzis (US 2016/0366085) in view of Martin et al (US 2020/0100084) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Barat et al (US 2014/0280578).
Per claim 5, 12 and 19, Touloumtzis in 0033 teaches the entity determines whether the user responded to the notification or made some action indicative of acknowledgment. 0033 further teaches context information associated with each device. So, it’s obvious that user responses are being tracked and a history is being formed. But, Touloumtzis does not explicitly teach determining whether the at least one user has a history of responding to alerts indicating the event.
In an analogous art, Barat teaches notification type for plurality of devices (abstract). Barat further teaches determining whether the at least one user has a history of responding to alerts indicating the event (0030, 0072-0073 teaches determining user’s history of responding to particular alerts and based on the determination/history, sending alerts to the specific device). Therefore, before the effective filling date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for Touloumtzis to use the alert determination based on history as taught by Barat. The rationale would be to make sure the user does respond to particular alerts based on the user’s history in order to reassure the alert is being received and noticed by the user.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lefrancois et al (US 2012/0072844) paragraph 0029 and 0047 teaches determining alert type based on device capabilities.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OMEED ALIZADA whose telephone number is (571)270-5907. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:30 am until 5:30 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, Brian Zimmerman can be reached at 571-272-3059. 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.
/OMEED ALIZADA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2686