DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the America Invents Act (AIA ).
General Information Matter
Please note, the instant Non-Provisional application (18/923,873) under prosecution at the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has been assigned to David Zarka (Examiner) in Art Unit 2449. To aid in correlating any papers for 18/923,873, all further correspondence regarding the instant application should be directed to the Examiner.
Joint Inventors
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the Examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicants are advised of the obligation under 37 C.F.R. § 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the Examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential § 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Information Disclosure Statement (IDS)
The IDSs filed October 23, 2024 and August 29, 2025 each comply with the provisions of 37 C.F.R. §§ 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609. The IDSs have been placed in the application file, and the information referred to therein has been considered.
Specification
37 C.F.R. § 1.72(a) recites “The title of the invention may not exceed 500 characters in length and must be as short and specific as possible.”
The title of the invention is objected to under § 1.72(a) for failing to be as specific as possible. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. The following title is suggested: “ANALYZING DATA TO IDENTIFY FIRST RESPONDER ACTION.”
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 101
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 101: “Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.”
Claims 1–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Alice/Mayo Step One, Prong One
In January 2019, the USPTO published revised guidance on the application of § 101. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019) (“Guidance”) (available at https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2019-01-07/pdf/2018-28282.pdf). Under the Guidance, the Examiner first looks to whether the claims recite: any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., (1) mathematical concepts, (2) certain methods of organizing human activities such as a fundamental economic practice, or (3) mental processes). See id. at 56.
Claims 1–13, 19, and 20
Here, the Examiner concludes Applicants’ claims 1–13, 19, and 20 recite an abstract idea. Notably, Applicants’ claims are generally directed to determining whether an identified action is taken by a user. This is consistent with how Applicants describes the invention. See Spec. ¶ 16 (“One or more aspects of the subject disclosure include . . . determining . . . whether the action is taken.”); see also id. ¶¶ 17, 52, 59, 79, 87.
Claim 1 is reproduced below, with the claim limitations that recite elements of the abstract idea of determining whether an identified action is taken by a user emphasized in italics:
1. A method, comprising:
obtaining, by a processing system including a processor, first data and second data;
analyzing, by the processing system, the first data and the second data to identify an action that is to be taken by a first responder;
transmitting, by the processing system, third data that identifies the action to a communication device associated with the first responder;
determining, by the processing system, whether the action is taken, resulting in a determination; and
storing, by the processing system, fourth data that is representative of the determination.
More particularly, determining whether an identified action is taken by a user comprises (i) obtaining first data and second data; (ii) analyzing the first data and the second data to identity an action that is to be taken by a first responder; (iii) transmitting third data that identifies the action to the first responder; (iv) determining whether the action is taken, resulting in a determination; and (v) storing fourth data that is representative of the determination.
Moreover, claim 19 is reproduced below, with the claim limitations that recite elements of the abstract idea of determining whether an identified action is taken by a user emphasized in italics:
1. A non-transitory machine-readable medium, comprising executable instructions that, when executed by a processing system including a processor, facilitate performance of operations, the operations comprising:
obtaining data;
analyzing the data to identify an action;
transmitting second data that identifies the action to a communication device; and
storing, as part of a profile associated with a user of the communication device and based on the transmitting of the second data, an indication that the action was taken by the user.
More particularly, determining whether an identified action is taken by a user comprises (i) obtaining data; (ii) analyzing the data to identity an action; (iii) transmitting second data that identifies the action; and (v) storing, as part of a profile associated with a user and based on the transmitting of the second data, an indication that the action was taken by the user.
Determining whether an identified action is taken by a user is managing personal behavior, relationships, and interactions between people. Therefore, determining whether an identified action is taken by a user is an abstract idea because it falls within the method of organizing human activity category in our Guidance. See 84 Fed. Reg. at 52 (reciting “(b) Certain methods of organizing human activity— . . . managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)”); see also Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 219–20 (2014) (describing the concept of risk hedging identified as an abstract idea in Bilski as ‘‘a method of organizing human activity’’); In re Comiskey, 554 F.3d 967, 981 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (holding claims directed to ‘‘resolving a legal dispute between two parties by the decision of a human arbitrator’’ are ineligible); Voter Verified, Inc. v. Election Systems & Software, LLC, 887 F.3d 1376, 1385 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (holding the concept of ‘‘voting, verifying the vote, and submitting the vote for tabulation,’’ a ‘‘fundamental activity’’ that humans have performed for hundreds of years, to be an abstract idea); In re Smith, 815 F.3d 816, 818 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding that ‘‘[a]pplicants’ claims, directed to rules for conducting a wagering game’’ are abstract); Planet Bingo, LLC v. VKGS LLC, 576 Fed. Appx. 1005 (Fed. Cir. 2014)(holding “managing a game of Bingo” is abstract).
Moreover, the claimed functions in claims 1 and 19 constitute mental processes because, before for the generic computing elements, the steps could be performed mentally or with pen and paper. See 84 Fed. Reg. at 52 (reciting “(c) Mental processes—concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).”); see also Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[W]ith the exception of generic computer-implemented steps, there is nothing in the claims themselves that foreclose them from being performed by a human, mentally or with pen and paper.”); Mortg. Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d. 1314, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2016)(holding that computer-implemented method for “anonymous loan shopping” was an abstract idea because it could be “performed by humans without a computer”); Versata Dev. Grp. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“Courts have examined claims that required the use of a computer and still found that the underlying, patent-ineligible invention could be performed via pen and paper or in a person’s mind.”).
Claims 14–18
Here, the Examiner concludes Applicants’ claims 14–18 recite an abstract idea. Notably, Applicants’ claims are generally directed to determining whether an identified action is transmitted to a user.
Claim 14 is reproduced below, with the claim limitations that recite elements of the abstract idea of determining whether an identified action is transmitted to a user emphasized in italics:
14. A device, comprising:
a processing system including a processor; and
a memory that stores executable instructions that, when executed by the processing system, facilitate performance of operations, the operations comprising:
obtaining data;
analyzing the data to identify an action that is to be taken by a first responder;
transmitting second data that identifies the action to a communication device associated with the first responder; and
storing, as part of a record, an indication that the second data was transmitted to the communication device.
More particularly, determining whether an identified action is transmitted to a user comprises (i) obtaining data; (ii) analyzing the data to identify an action that is to be taken by a first responder; (iii) transmitting second data that identifies the action to the first responder; and (iv) storing, as part of a record, an indication that the second data was transmitted.
Determining whether an identified action is transmitted to a user is managing personal behavior, relationships, and interactions between people. Therefore, determining whether an identified action is transmitted to a user is an abstract idea because it falls within the method of organizing human activity category in our Guidance. See 84 Fed. Reg. at 52; see also Alice, 573 U.S. at 219–20; Comiskey, 554 F.3d at 981; Voter Verified, 887 F.3d at 1385; Smith, 815 F.3d at 818; Planet Bingo.
Moreover, the claimed functions in claim 14 constitutes mental processes because, before for the generic computing elements, the steps could be performed mentally or with pen and paper. See 84 Fed. Reg. at 52; see also Intellectual Ventures, 838 F.3d at 1318; Mortg. Grader, 811 F.3d. at 1324; Versata, 793 F.3d at 1335.
Summary
For the above reasons, claims 1–20 as a whole recites (i) a method of organizing human activity category and (ii) mental processes identified in the Revised Guidance. See Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52. Accordingly, claims 1–20 recite an abstract idea. See Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat. Ass’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (explaining that when all claims are directed to the same abstract idea, “addressing each claim of the asserted patents [is] unnecessary.”).
Alice/Mayo Step One, Prong Two
Next, under the Guidance, although claims 1–20 recites an abstract idea based on these certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes, the Examiner nevertheless must still determine whether the abstract idea is integrated into a practical application, namely whether claims 1–20 applies, relies on, or uses the abstract idea in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the abstract idea, such that claims 1–20 are more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea. See Guidance at 54–55. To this end, the Examiner (1) identifies whether there are any additional recited elements beyond the abstract idea, and (2) evaluates those elements individually and collectively to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application. See id.; see also MPEP § 2106.05(a)-(c), (e)-(h).
Claims 1–13
Here, the recited (1) “processing system including a processor” and (2) “a communication device” associated with the first responder are the only recited elements beyond the abstract idea, but those additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application when reading claim 1 as a whole. Notably, the Examiner finds claim 1 recites additional elements that do not (1) improve the computer itself; (2) improve another technology or technical field; (3) implement the abstract idea in conjunction with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to claim 1; or (4) transform or reducing a particular article to a different state or thing. See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 (citing MPEP §§ 2106.05(a)–(c)). Rather, the above-noted additional elements merely (1) apply the abstract idea on a computer; (2) include instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer; or (3) use the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 (citing MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
Thus, the Examiner determines claims 1–13 is directed to an abstract idea.
Claims 14–18
Here, the recited (1) “device, comprising: a processing system including a processor; and a memory that stores executable instructions that, when executed by the processing system, facilitate performance of operations” and (2) “a communication device” associated with the first responder are the only recited elements beyond the abstract idea, but those additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application when reading claim 4 as a whole for the same reasons as discussed above concerning claim 1.
Thus, the Examiner determines claims 14–18 is directed to an abstract idea.
Claims 19 and 20
Here, the recited (1) “non-transitory machine-readable medium, comprising executable instructions that, when executed by a processing system including a processor, facilitate performance of operations” and (2) “communication device” are the only recited elements beyond the abstract idea, but those additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application when reading claim 19 as a whole for the same reasons as discussed above concerning claim 1.
Thus, the Examiner determines claims 19 and 20 is directed to an abstract idea.
Alice/Mayo Step Two
According to the Guidance, only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception, and (2) does not integrate that exception into a practical application, the Examiner then looks to whether the claim:
(3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)); or
(4) simply appends well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception.
Claims 1–20
Here, the recited (1) “processing system including a processor”; (2) “a communication device” associated with the first responder; (3) “device, comprising: a processing system including a processor; and a memory that stores executable instructions that, when executed by the processing system, facilitate performance of operations”; (4) “a communication device” associated with the first responder; and (5) “non-transitory machine-readable medium, comprising executable instructions that, when executed by a processing system including a processor, facilitate performance of operations” are the additional recited elements whose generic computing functionality is well-understood, routine, and conventional. See Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (noting that a recited user profile (i.e., a profile keyed to a user identity), database, and communication medium are generic computer elements); Mortg. Grader Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs., Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1324–25 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (noting that components such an “interface,” “network,” and “database” are generic computer components that do not satisfy the inventive concept requirement); buySAFE v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“That a computer receives and sends the information over a network—with no further specification—is not even arguably inventive.”); see also Spec. ¶¶ 87–95; Fig. 6 (describing generic computer components associated with the disclosed invention).
In conclusion, the additional recited elements—considered individually and as an ordered combination—do not add significantly more than the abstract idea to provide an inventive concept under Alice/Mayo step two. See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 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 –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Aggarwal
Claims 1–4, 6–8, 11, 13–16, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being anticipated by Aggarwal et al. (US 2018/0253985 A1; filed Mar. 2, 2018).
Regarding claim 1, Aggarwal discloses a method, comprising:
obtaining, by a processing system (fig. 1, item 101) including a processor (“messaging server 101 may include a processor” at ¶ 32), first data (“the user to provide a username” at ¶ 77; “Am-_sctdemo” at fig. 3C) and second data (“the user to provide a . . . password” at ¶ 77; “9ijn4” at fig. 3C);
analyzing (“Login Successful!! Yay” at fig. 3C), by the processing system, the first data and the second data to identify an action (“the user interface may include a text field below the question for providing a first module response” at ¶ 82; “Module Response” at fig. 9A; “The user may respond ‘It is 1/2/3/4/first/second/third/fourth’ or ‘I think the answer is 1/2/3/4/first/second/third/fourth’” at ¶ 120) that is to be taken by a first responder (fig. 1, item 125a; intended use in italics);
transmitting, by the processing system, third data (“presents questions and the user answers the questions” at ¶ 82; fig. 3E) that identifies the action to a communication device (fig. 1, item 115a) associated with the first responder;
determining, by the processing system, whether the action is taken, resulting in a determination (“move to the next question” at fig. 9A; “the messaging application 103 will move to the next question” at ¶ 120); and
storing, by the processing system, fourth data (“the messaging module 202 may compare a user response that includes one or more words to recognizable responses that are stored in the database 247” at ¶ 56; one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to infer the responses to the questions are stored to determine “[y]ou got 91% of the questions correct.” at fig. 3K; see MPEP § 2144.01) that is representative of the determination.
Regarding claim 2, Aggarwal discloses wherein the determining whether the action is taken comprises a determination of whether the action is taken within a threshold amount of time (“the time remaining to take the test” at ¶ 86; “Time Remaining: 18:56” at fig. 3E).
Regarding claim 3, Aggarwal discloses further comprising: transmitting, by the processing system, fifth data (fig. 3F; ¶ 83) to the communication device, wherein the fifth data represents instructions for performing the action.
Regarding claim 4, Aggarwal discloses wherein the instructions identify a technique (fig. 3F; ¶ 83) for performing the action.
Regarding claim 6, Aggarwal discloses wherein the determining whether the action is taken is based on an output of a sensor (official notice the mobile device illustrated in fig. 3 uses capacitors to output information when a user’s finger is placed on the mobile device’s screen; see MPEP § 2144.031).
Regarding claim 7, Aggarwal discloses further comprising: identifying, by the processing system and based on the fourth data, a preference (“Your weakest area is in biological and biochemical foundations of living systems.” at fig. 3K) of the first responder.
Regarding claim 8, Aggarwal discloses2 further comprising:
obtaining, by the processing system, fifth data (“the user to provide a username” at ¶ 77; “Am-_sctdemo” at fig. 3C) and sixth data (“the user to provide a . . . password” at ¶ 77; “9ijn4” at fig. 3C);
analyzing (“Login Successful!! Yay” at fig. 3C), by the processing system, the fifth data and the sixth data to identify a second action (“the user interface may include a text field below the question for providing a first module response” at ¶ 82; “Module Response” at fig. 9A; “The user may respond ‘It is 1/2/3/4/first/second/third/fourth’ or ‘I think the answer is 1/2/3/4/first/second/third/fourth’” at ¶ 120) that is to be taken by the first responder (fig. 1, item 125a; intended use in italics);
transmitting, by the processing system and based on the preference, seventh data (“presents questions and the user answers the questions” at ¶ 82; fig. 3E) that identifies the second action to the communication device (fig. 1, item 115a) associated with the first responder;
determining, by the processing system, whether the second action is taken, resulting in a second determination (“move to the next question” at fig. 9A; “the messaging application 103 will move to the next question” at ¶ 120); and
storing, by the processing system, eighth data (“the messaging module 202 may compare a user response that includes one or more words to recognizable responses that are stored in the database 247” at ¶ 56; one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to infer the responses to the questions are stored to determine “[y]ou got 91% of the questions correct.” at fig. 3K; see MPEP § 2144.01) that is representative of the second determination.
Regarding claim 11, Aggarwal discloses wherein the transmitting of the third data is based on a schedule (“the time remaining to take the test” at ¶ 86; “Time Remaining: 18:56” at fig. 3E) of the first responder.
Regarding claim 13, Aggarwal discloses wherein the determination indicates that the action is taken (“move to the next question” at fig. 9A; “the messaging application 103 will move to the next question” at ¶ 120), the method further comprising:
generating, by the processing system and based on the determination, a recommendation (“Your weakest area is in biological and biochemical foundations in living systems. Do you want to do some more practice texts for that area?” at fig. 3K; ¶¶ 63–64) regarding a second action (¶¶ 63–64); and
presenting, by the processing system, the recommendation as part of an education or training seminar (“In this example, the user took the medical college admission test (MCAT).” at ¶ 91).
Regarding claim 14, Aggarwal discloses a device (fig. 1, item 101), comprising:
a processing system including a processor (“messaging server 101 may include a processor” at ¶ 32); and
a memory (fig. 1, item 199) that stores executable instructions that, when executed by the processing system, facilitate performance of operations, the operations comprising:
obtaining data (“the user to provide a username and password” at ¶ 77);
analyzing the data (“Login Successful!! Yay” at fig. 3C) to identify an action (“the user interface may include a text field below the question for providing a first module response” at ¶ 82; “Module Response” at fig. 9A; “The user may respond ‘It is 1/2/3/4/first/second/third/fourth’ or ‘I think the answer is 1/2/3/4/first/second/third/fourth’” at ¶ 120) that is to be taken by a first responder (fig. 1, item 125a; intended use in italics);
transmitting second data (“presents questions and the user answers the questions” at ¶ 82; fig. 3E) that identifies the action to a communication device (fig. 1, item 115a) associated with the first responder; and
storing, as part of a record, an indication (one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to infer the responses to the questions are stored to determine “[y]ou got 91% of the questions correct.” at fig. 3K; see MPEP § 2144.01) that the second data was transmitted to the communication device.
Regarding claims 15 and 16, claims 3 and 4, respectively, recite substantially similar features. Thus, references/arguments equivalent to those present for claims 3 and 4 are equally applicable to, respectively, claims 15 and 16.
Regarding claim 19, Aggarwal discloses a non-transitory machine-readable medium (fig. 1, item 199), comprising executable instructions that, when executed by a processing system including a processor (“messaging server 101 may include a processor” at ¶ 32), facilitate performance of operations, the operations comprising operations according to claim 14. Thus, references/arguments equivalent to those present for claim 14 are equally applicable to claim 19.
Regarding claim 20, Aggarwal discloses wherein the transmitting of the second data (“presents questions and the user answers the questions” at ¶ 82; fig. 3E) causes the communication device to present a notification (fig. 3E, item 340; ¶ 82), and wherein a type of the notification is based on a display setting (the example user interface 340 must inherently be based on a display setting such as brightness for the user to view the interface 340, or it being operation for the user to view the interface 340; see MPEP § 2112) of the communication device, a vibratory setting of the communication device, and an audio setting of the communication device.
Jensen
Claims 1, 14, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being anticipated by Jensen et al. (US 2021/0165871 A1; filed Dec. 3, 2019).
Regarding claim 1, Jensen discloses a method (fig. 4; ¶¶ 60–67), comprising:
obtaining (fig. 4, item 402; ¶ 61), by a processing system (fig. 1A, item 140; ¶ 60) including a processor (“the method 400 can be performed by one or more processors” at ¶ 60), first data (“a username” at ¶ 61) and second data (“a password” at ¶ 61);
analyzing (fig. 4, item 404; one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to infer the username and password are first recognized before creating the account associated with the username and password at ¶ 61; see MPEP § 2144.01), by the processing system, the first data and the second data to identify an action (fig. 4, item 406; ¶ 63) that is to be taken by a first responder (“a single user of a client device 110” at ¶ 35; intended use in italics);
transmitting, by the processing system, third data (fig. 4, item 406; ¶ 63) that identifies the action to a communication device (fig. 1A, item 110) associated with the first responder;
determining, by the processing system, whether the action is taken, resulting in a determination (fig. 4, item 408); and
storing, by the processing system, fourth data (fig. 4, items 412, 414) that is representative of the determination.
Regarding claim 14, Jensen discloses a device (fig. 1A, item 140; ¶ 60), comprising:
a processing system including a processor (“the method 400 can be performed by one or more processors” at ¶ 60); and
a memory (fig. 1A, item 140; ¶ 60; one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to infer item 140 including processors also includes memory; see MPEP § 2144.01) that stores executable instructions that, when executed by the processing system, facilitate performance of operations, the operations comprising:
obtaining data (“a username and a password” at ¶ 61);
analyzing the data ((fig. 4, item 404; one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to infer the username and password are first recognized before creating the account associated with the username and password at ¶ 61; see MPEP § 2144.01) to identify an action (fig. 4, item 406; ¶ 63) that is to be taken by a first responder (“a single user of a client device 110” at ¶ 35; intended use in italics);
transmitting second data (fig. 4, item 406; ¶ 63) that identifies the action to a communication device (fig. 1A, item 110) associated with the first responder; and
storing, as part of a record, an indication (fig. 4, items 412, 414) that the second data was transmitted to the communication device.
Regarding claim 19, Aggarwal discloses a non-transitory machine-readable medium (fig. 1A, item 140; ¶ 60; one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to infer item 140 including processors also includes memory; see MPEP § 2144.01), comprising executable instructions that, when executed by a processing system including a processor (“the method 400 can be performed by one or more processors” at ¶ 60), facilitate performance of operations, the operations comprising operations according to claim 14. Thus, references/arguments equivalent to those present for claim 14 are equally applicable to claim 19.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 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.
Aggarwal and Gordon
Claims 5 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over Aggarwal in view of Gordon et al. (US 2016/0241402 A1; filed Feb. 17, 2016).
Regarding claim 5, while Aggarwal teaches wherein the instructions (fig. 3F; ¶ 83) identify commands (“FIG. 3F illustrates an example user interface of a messaging stream 350 with helpful commands. The messaging module 202 may provide a list of commands that the user can use in response to the user typing ‘help.’” at ¶ 83) that are to be utilized for performing the action (intended use in italics),
Aggarwal does not teach the commands including equipment.
Gordon teaches equipment (“generate a service provider device ID that uniquely identifies the mobile device used at the time of registration” at ¶ 38).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention for Aggarwal’s commands to include equipment as taught by Gordon “for improved security.” Gordon ¶ 15.
Regarding claim 17, claim 5 recites substantially similar features. Thus, references/arguments equivalent to those present for claim 5 are equally applicable to claim 17.
Aggarwal and Granot
Claims 9, 10, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over Aggarwal in view of Granot et al. (US 2016/0328520 A1; PCT filed Dec. 24, 2014).
Regarding claim 9, while Aggarwal wherein the first data includes data (“the user to provide a username and password” at ¶ 77),
Aggarwal does not teach the data being associated with a user that is different from the first responder.
Granot teaches data associated with a user (“a doctor” at ¶¶ 139–140) that is different from a first responder (“during initial registration, each user will be asked to find and select a doctor/practice in which they wish to join” at ¶ 140; “user is also prompted to search and select a doctor (or in some cases medical facility) by using a locator function” at ¶ 139).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention for Aggarwal’s data to be associated with a user that is different from the first responder as taught by Granot for “efficiently conducting appointments with clients.” Granot ¶ 3.
Regarding claim 10, while Aggarwal teaches wherein the action includes answering a question (“the user interface may include a text field below the question for providing a first module response” at ¶ 82; “Module Response” at fig. 9A; “The user may respond ‘It is 1/2/3/4/first/second/third/fourth’ or ‘I think the answer is 1/2/3/4/first/second/third/fourth’” at ¶ 120),
Aggarwal does not teach the action includes an administration of medical care to the user.
Granot teaches an administration of medical care to a user (“The user is also prompted to search and select a doctor (or in some cases medical facility)” at ¶ 139).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention for Aggarwal’s action to include an administration of medical care to the user as taught by Granot for “efficiently conducting appointments with clients.” Granot ¶ 3.
Regarding claim 18, Aggarwal does not teach wherein the data includes first data associated with a patient, and wherein the action includes an administration of medical care to the patient.
Granot teaches first data (“during initial registration, each user will be asked to find and select a doctor/practice in which they wish to join” at ¶ 140; “user is also prompted to search and select a doctor (or in some cases medical facility) by using a locator function” at ¶ 139) associated with a patient (“user” at ¶¶ 139–140), and
wherein an action includes an administration of medical care (“The user is also prompted to search and select a doctor (or in some cases medical facility)” at ¶ 139) to the patient.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention for Aggarwal’s data to include first data associated with a patient and for Aggarwal’s action to include an administration of medical care to the patient as taught by Granot for “efficiently conducting appointments with clients.” Granot ¶ 3.
Aggarwal and Selmi
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over Aggarwal in view of Selmi et al. (US 2022/0240195 A1; PCT filed May 11, 2020).
Regarding claim 12, while Aggarwal teaches wherein the transmitting of the third data is based on questions presented (“presents questions and the user answers the questions” at ¶ 82; fig. 3E),
Aggarwal does not teach the transmitting the third data being based on a network load.
Selmi teaches transmitting data based on a network load (“transmit their data packets depending on the network load” at ¶ 159).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention for Aggarwal’s transmitting of the third data to be based on a network load as taught by Selmi to “to successfully transmit their data packets.” Selmi ¶ 159.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicants’ disclosure: US-6750902-B1 and US-20220309527-A1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to DAVID P. ZARKA whose telephone number is (703) 756-5746. The Examiner can normally be reached Monday–Friday from 9:30AM–6PM ET.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Vivek Srivastava, can be reached at (571) 272-7304. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned 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://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at (866) 217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, Applicants are encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
/DAVID P ZARKA/PATENT EXAMINER, Art Unit 2449
1 See Geng et al. (US 2022/0022275 A1; filed Sept. 28, 2021) ¶ 112.
2 The Examiner finds one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to infer Aggarwal’s test is repeatable. See MPEP § 2144.01. The Examiner maps Aggarwal’s inferred second test to the elements of claim 8.