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 ).
Response and Claim Status
The instant Office action is responsive to the response received April 23, 2026 (the Response).
In response to the Response, the previous (1) objection to the title under 37 C.F.R. § 1.72(a); (2) rejection of claims 1–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101; (3) rejections of claims 1–4, 6–8, 11, 13–16, 19, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102; and (4) rejections of claims 5, 7, 9, 10, 12, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
are WITHDRAWN.
Claims 1, 2, 4–14, and 16–22 are currently pending.
Information Disclosure Statement (IDS)
The IDS filed April 23, 2026 complies with the provisions of 37 C.F.R. §§ 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609. The IDS has been placed in the application file, and the information referred to therein has been considered.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments with respect to (1) the rejection of claims 1–4, 6–8, 11, 13–16, 19, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being anticipated by Aggarwal et al. (US 2018/0253985 A1; filed Mar. 2, 2018) (see Response 9–10); and (2) the rejection of claims 1–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 (see id. at 11–15) have been considered but are now moot.
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, Shah, and Micucci
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6–8, 11, 13, 14, 16, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over Aggarwal et al. (US 2018/0253985 A1; filed Mar. 2, 2018) in view of Shah et al. (US 11,641,368 B1; filed June 24, 2019), and in further view of Micucci et al. (US 2014/0068737 A1; filed Mar. 15, 2013).
Regarding claim 1, while Aggarwal teaches 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) in conjunction with a first user interface (fig. 3E, item 340) that identifies the action to a communication device (fig. 1, item 115a) associated with the first responder;
transmitting, by the processing system, fourth data (“provide a list of commands that the user can use in response to the user typing ‘help.’” at ¶ 82; fig. 3F) in conjunction with a second user interface (fig. 3F, item 350) to the communication device, wherein the fourth data represents instructions for performing the action;
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, fifth 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; Aggarwal at least suggests the responses to the questions are stored to determine “[y]ou got 91% of the questions correct.” at fig. 3K) that is representative of the determination,
Aggarwal does not teach (A) the analyzing the first data and the second data using machine learning; and (B) the third data and the fourth data in conjunction with, respectively, a first tier or folder and a second tier or folder.
(A)
Shah teaches analyzing first data (“username” at 2:30) and second data (“password” at 2:31) using machine learning (“a trained machine learning model” at 2:37).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention for Aggarwal’s first data and second data to be analyzed using machine learning as taught by Shah “to determine a risk level associated with the user login attempt.” Shah 2:38–39.
(B)
Micucci teaches data in conjunction with a tier of folder (“user interface 700 can also include a file folder” at ¶ 75).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention for Aggarwal’s third data and fourth data, to include, respectively, a first tier or folder and a second tier or folder as taught by Micucci for “[b]etter information exchange.” Micucci ¶ 5.
Regarding claim 2, Aggarwal teaches 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 4, Aggarwal teaches wherein the instructions identify a technique (fig. 3F; ¶ 83) for performing the action.
Regarding claim 6, Aggarwal teaches 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 teaches further comprising: identifying, by the processing system and based on the fifth 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 teaches2 further comprising:
obtaining, by the processing system, sixth data (“the user to provide a username” at ¶ 77; “Am-_sctdemo” at fig. 3C) and seventh 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 sixth data and the seventh 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, eighth 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, ninth 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; Aggarwal at least suggests 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 teaches 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 teaches 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, while Aggarwal teaches 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” at ¶ 77; “Am-_sctdemo” at fig. 3C);
analyzing the data (“Login Successful!! Yay” at fig. 3C) in conjunction with second data (“the user to provide a . . . password” at ¶ 77; “9ijn4” 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 third data (“presents questions and the user answers the questions” at ¶ 82; fig. 3E) in conjunction with a first user interface (fig. 3E, item 340) that identifies the action to a communication device (fig. 1, item 115a) associated with the first responder;
transmitting fourth data (“provide a list of commands that the user can use in response to the user typing ‘help.’” at ¶ 82; fig. 3F) in conjunction with a second user interface (fig. 3F, item 350) to the communication device, wherein the fourth data represents instructions for performing the action; and
storing, as part of a record, an indication (Aggarwal at least suggests the responses to the questions are stored to determine “[y]ou got 91% of the questions correct.” at fig. 3K) that the third data was transmitted to the communication device,
Aggarwal does not teach (A) the analyzing the data in conjunction with second data via machine learning; and (B) the third data and the fourth data in conjunction with, respectively, a first tier or folder and a second tier or folder.
(A)
Shah teaches analyzing first data (“username” at 2:30) in conjunction with second data (“password” at 2:31) via machine learning (“a trained machine learning model” at 2:37).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention for Aggarwal’s first data in conjunction with second data to be analyzed using machine learning as taught by Shah “to determine a risk level associated with the user login attempt.” Shah 2:38–39.
(B)
Micucci teaches data in conjunction with a tier of folder (“user interface 700 can also include a file folder” at ¶ 75).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention for Aggarwal’s third data and fourth data, to include, respectively, a first tier or folder and a second tier or folder as taught by Micucci for “[b]etter information exchange.” Micucci ¶ 5.
Regarding claim 16, claim 4 recites substantially similar features. Thus, references/arguments equivalent to those present for claim 4 are equally applicable to claim 16.
Regarding claim 19, Aggarwal teaches 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 teaches wherein the transmitting of the third 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).
Aggarwal, Shah, Micucci, and Gordon
Claims 5 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over Aggarwal in view of Shah, in further view of Micucci, and 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, Shah, Micucci, and Gordon
Claims 9, 10, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over Aggarwal in view of Shah, in further view of Micucci, and in further 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, Shah, Micucci, and Selmi
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over Aggarwal in view of Shah, in further view of Micucci, and in further 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.
Aggarwal, Shah, Micucci, and Endo
Claims 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over Aggarwal in view of Shah, in further view of Micucci, and in further view of Endo (US 2020/0242766 A1; filed Apr. 19, 2020).
Regarding claim 21, Aggarwal does not teach wherein a type of the notification is based on a display setting of the communication device.
Endo teaches a type of notification (a type of notification involving loud sound, no vibration, and display time of 10 seconds at fig. 8; ¶ 80) is based on a display setting (display time of 10 seconds at fig. 8; ¶ 80) of a communication device (fig. 1, item 18).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention for Aggarwal to include wherein a type of the notification is based on a display setting of the communication device as taught by Endo “to perform a notification such that the user does not overlook” important information. Endo ¶ 4. By customizing the notification, the user will not mistake the notification with other output performed by the communication device.
Regarding claim 22, Aggarwal does not teach wherein a type of the notification is based on a vibratory setting of the communication device and an audio setting of the communication device.
Endo teaches a type of notification (a type of notification involving loud sound, no vibration, and display time of 10 seconds at fig. 8; ¶ 80) is based on a vibratory setting (no vibration at fig. 8; ¶ 80) of a communication device (fig. 1, item 18) and an audio setting (loud sound at fig. 8; ¶ 80) of the communication device.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention for Aggarwal to include wherein a type of the notification is based on a vibratory setting of the communication device and an audio setting of the communication device as taught by Endo “to perform a notification such that the user does not overlook” important information. Endo ¶ 4. By customizing the notification, the user will not mistake the notification with other output performed by the communication device.
Conclusion
Applicants’ amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicants are reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 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 extension fee pursuant to § 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.
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 Aggarwal at least suggests its test is repeatable. See MPEP § 2144.01. The Examiner maps Aggarwal’s inferred second test to the elements of claim 8.
Prosecution Insights