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 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 - 20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,183,343. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because 1 - 20 of the instant application are similar in scope and content of claims 1 - 20 of the cited patent.
It would have been obvious to an artisan at the time the invention was made to use the teaching of claims 1 - 20 of the patent (343) as a general teaching for generating message rule, to perform method/system as claimed in the present invention. The instant claims obviously encompass the claimed invention of the '343' patent and differ only in the method steps. The extent that the instant claims are broaden and therefore generic to claimed invention of '343' patent [species], In re Goodman 29 USPQ 2d 2010 CAFC 1993, states that a generic claim cannot be issued without a terminal disclaimer, if a species claim has been previously been claimed in a patent/copending application. And since the structure is as recited, the method step is obtained and therefore, obvious.
Here is a comparison between claim 14 of the instant application and claim 14 of the cited patent.
Instant Application 18/966,731
Patent 12,183,343
Comparison
14.A method performed by at least one processor of a server device, comprising:
14.A voice-activated message filtering rule generation method performed by at least one processor of a server device, comprising:
Similar
receiving a spoken command from a communication device;
receiving a spoken command from a communication device;
Same
parsing the spoken command to identify one or more elements of the spoken command;
generating a message rule based on at least one of the one or more identified elements of the spoken command; and
parsing the spoken command to identify a plurality of elements of the spoken command; determining a priority based on at least one of the identified elements of the spoken command;
Similar
using the generated message rule as a filter to control message transmission to the communication device, wherein using the generated message rule as the filter to control message transmission to the communication device comprises (i) making a determination of whether the generated message rule has been met and (ii) refraining from sending a message to the communication device in response to the determination being that the generated message rule has not been met.
wherein generating a message rule based on the identified plurality of elements of the spoken command; determining whether the generated message rule has been met; and controlling whether to send a message to the communication device, the controlling being based on the determination of whether the message rule has been met.
Similar
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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)(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.
Claims 1 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Barkol et al. (US PAP 2020/0327996).
As per claims 1, 14, and 18, Barkol et al. teach a server device/method comprising:
at least one processor; non-transitory computer-readable storage; and program instructions stored in the non-transitory storage and executable by the at least one processor to cause the server device to perform operations including (paragraph 33):
receiving a spoken command from a communication device (“A user may select the link via a suitable input, such as via a mouse click, touch input, or voice command.”; paragraph 69),
parsing the spoken command to identify one or more elements of the spoken command, generating a message rule based on at least one of the one or more identified elements of the spoken command (“a caregiver may request “let me know if the systolic blood pressure goes below 100.””; paragraphs 28, 116 – 118); and
using the generated message rule as a filter to control message transmission to the communication device, wherein using the generated message rule as the filter to control message transmission to the communication device comprises (i) making a determination of whether the generated message rule has been met and (ii) refraining from sending a message to the communication device in response to the determination being that the generated message rule has not been met (“Dr. Smith enters a request to be notified when the heart rate of patient 1234 drops below a threshold heart rate (e.g., “Alan let me know when HR drops below 50”). The request is entered via text or voice as a natural language input, e.g., the request is conversational in nature and does not include search terms entered into search fields. The request is also directed at the virtual assistant, as the request starts with the virtual assistant's “name,” Alan. The virtual assistant then processes the natural language input to determine that the natural language input includes a user request to receive a notification when the patient heart rate drops below 50, where the notification is specific to patient 1234 and specific to Dr. Smith.”; paragraphs 116 – 118).
As per claim 2, Barkol et al. further disclose the operations additionally include determining an intent comprising an action to be taken and a subject of the action based on at least one of the one or more identified elements of the spoken command, wherein generating the message rule comprises generating the message rule based on the determined intent (“each VHA may process a received message to understand (in natural language) the intent of the message and determine if the intent of the message includes a task that the VHA is trained/configured to perform. In some examples, the server system may include a central entity configured to understand the intent of the message (e.g., from the natural language of the message) and determine which VHA is best configured to handle the request.”; paragraphs 116 – 118, 145).
As per claim 3, Barkol et al. further disclose generating the message rule based on the at least one of the one or more identified of elements of the spoken command comprises: adding one or more rule fields to the determined intent; and generating the message rule based on the determined intent and the added one or more rule fields (“the care provider device 134 may then process the received notification (e.g., insert the received notification into a notification template stored locally on care provider device) and display the notification”; paragraphs 63, 116 – 118, 145, and 153).
As per claims 4, 15, and 19, Barkol et al. further disclose generating the message rule based on the at least one of the one or more identified elements of the spoken command comprises generating the message rule comprising a patient event (paragraphs 116 – 118).
As per claims 5, 16, and 20, Barkol et al. further disclose generating the message rule based on the at least one of the one or more identified elements of the spoken command comprises generating the message rule comprising a patient event and at least one item selected from the group consisting of (i) a patient event threshold and (ii) a qualifier of the patient event(paragraphs 116 – 118, 155).
As per claim 6, Barkol et al. further disclose generating the message rule based on the at least one of the one or more identified elements of the spoken command comprises: mapping at least a given element of the identified elements to a rule template field; and generating the message rule based on information in the rule template field (“the care provider device 134 may then process the received notification (e.g., insert the received notification into a notification template stored locally on care provider device) and display the notification”; paragraphs 63, 116 – 118, 145, and 153).
As per claim 7, Barkol et al. further disclose mapping the given element to the rule template field comprises converting information in the given element to a field value, and wherein generating the message rule based on information in the rule template field comprises generating the message rule based on information in the field value(“the care provider device 134 may then process the received notification (e.g., insert the received notification into a notification template stored locally on care provider device) and display the notification”; paragraphs 63, 116 – 118, 145, and 153).
As per claim 8, Barkol et al. further disclose mapping the given element to the rule template field comprises mapping to the rule template field at least one item selected from the group consisting of (i) a patient vital sign identifier, (ii) a comparator, and (iii) a patient vital sign value (paragraphs 63, 116 – 118, 145, and 153).
As per claim 9, Barkol et al. further disclose mapping the given element to the rule template field comprises applying a customized mapping of the given element and the rule template field (paragraphs 63, 116 – 118, 145, and 153).
As per claim 10, Barkol et al. further disclose the operations additionally include determining a priority based on at least one of the one or more identified elements of the spoken command, wherein generating the message rule comprises associating the message rule with the determined priority (paragraphs 116 – 118, 155, 156).
As per claim 11, Barkol et al. further disclose the operations additionally include: sending to the communication device a summary of the generated message rule; and monitoring for an approval from the communication device of the summary of the generated message rule (“a care provider may access the summary page in order to quickly get up-to-date on the patient's history and current condition(s).”; paragraphs 96, 116 – 118, 155, 156).
As per claim 12, Barkol et al. further disclose the operations additionally include: generating a time to live value for the generated message rule; and deleting the message rule after the time to live value is met (“the timeline may include patient medical information that was generated over a prior period of time, such as the last 8 or 12 hours. The timeline may present a brief distillation of current patient status to facilitate quick and seamless transfer of patient care from one care provider to another during a shift change, for example.”; paragraphs 126 – 133, 155, 156).
As per claim 13, Barkol et al. further disclose the operations additionally include: receiving a second spoken command from the communication device; parsing the second spoken command to identify at least one element in the second spoken command that relates to modifying the message rule; and modifying the message rule based on the identified at least one element in the second spoken command (“The thresholds may be different for different patient medical parameters. For example, blood pressure may have different thresholds than heart rate. Further, more than one threshold may be assigned to a given patient medical parameter. For example, heart rate may have two thresholds, a first threshold that indicates a warning status of the patient, and a second (higher or lower) threshold that indicates a critical status of the patient. Further, different patients may have different thresholds for the same medical parameter. For example, a first patient may have a first threshold for heart rate that indicates the patient may be in a warning status, while a second patient may have a second threshold for heart rate that indicates the second patient is in the warning status.” paragraphs 116 – 118, 155, 156).
As per claim 17, Barkol et al. further disclose generating the message rule based on the at least one of the one or more identified elements of the spoken command comprises: mapping at least a given element of the one or more identified elements to a rule template field; and generating the message rule based on information in the rule template field, wherein mapping the given element to the rule template field comprises mapping to the rule template field at least one item selected from the group consisting of (i) a patient vital sign identifier, (ii) a comparator, and (iii) a patient vital sign value (paragraphs 93 - 98, 116 – 118, 145, and 153).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Jorasch et al teach refraining from sending data about the user's vital signs, ambient conditions, voice messages created by the user, or other types of data deemed to be of lesser priority. Moore teaches a Method For Screening Social Media Content. Grant et al. teach METHODS FOR MANAGING DATA by applying one or more rules/filter/instructions/settings to the messages (e.g., diagnostic messages).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LEONARD SAINT-CYR whose telephone number is (571)272-4247. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday.
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, Richemond Dorvil can be reached at (571)272-7602. 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.
/LEONARD SAINT-CYR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2658
Prosecution Insights