DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Claim status
This action is in response to applicant filed on 08/25/2026.
Claims 1-20 have been cancelled.
Claims 21, 29, 30, 31, 32 and 40 have been amended.
Claims 21-40 are pending for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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 21, 23-25, 27-32, 34-36 and 38-40 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kates (US 2007/0139183) in view of Krishnan et al. (US 2021/0193316).
Regarding claim 21: Kates disclose a system comprising one or more computers and one or more storage devices on which are stored instructions that are operable (Fig. 1), when executed by the one or more computers, to cause the one or more computers to perform operations comprising:
determining whether the one or more actions that correspond to a detected alert conflict with a currently running operation on a device (¶0136: determine a different severity of the condition) ; and
in response to determining that the one or more actions conflict with the currently running operation (¶0136: severity of the condition different from current severity):
altering a state of the currently running operation from a first state to a second state (¶0136: changing volume and/or color of the alarm of the operation of the device);
at least partially after altering the state, performing the one or more actions (¶0136: performing the actual alert); and
after performing the one or more actions, altering the second state of the currently running operation (¶0136: if severity changes, changing the running operation of the device accordingly).
Kate does not explicitly disclose the currently running operation being separate from the one or more actions that correspond to the detected alert, at least partially after altering the state, performing the one or more actions that are separate from the currently running operation; and after performing the one or more actions, altering the currently running operation from the second state of the currently running operation.
In analogous art regarding alerts, Krishnan disclose a system wherein the currently running operation (patient engagement 300) being separate from the one or more actions that correspond to the detected alert (pop-up notification), at least partially after altering the state, performing the one or more actions that are separate from the currently running operation; and after performing the one or more actions, altering the currently running operation from the second state of the currently running operation (Fig. 3, ¶0060: patient engagement program may stop (i.e. altered) when a pop-up notification is shown (one or more actions) and once reconfirmation, it continues with the program ).
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to the one of the ordinary skill in the art to include the feature of the currently running operation being separate from the one or more actions that correspond to the detected alert, at least partially after altering the state, performing the one or more actions that are separate from the currently running operation; and after performing the one or more actions, altering the currently running operation from the second state of the currently running operation, as disclose by Krishnan, to the system of Kates. The motivation is to make sure the action (alert) has complete attention of the user.
Regarding claim 23: The combination of Kates and Krishnan disclose the system of claim 21, wherein performing the one or more actions comprises providing for display a visual alert on a display of the device. (Kate: ¶0136)
Regarding claim 24: The combination of Kates and Krishnan disclose the system of claim 21, wherein performing the one or more actions comprises playing an audio alert. (Kate: ¶0136)
Regarding claim 25: The combination of Kates and Krishnan disclose the system of claim 21, wherein:
altering the state of the currently running operation comprises pausing the currently running operation; and
performing the one or more actions comprises, after pausing the currently running operation:
displaying a visual alert; or presenting an audio alert. (Kate: ¶0136: when severity changes to a new severity, the previous severity and operation of the device associated with it is on pause until their previous severity is determined again)
Regarding claim 27: The combination of Kates and Krishnan disclose the system of claim 21, wherein performing the one or more actions comprises: providing for display input controls representing one or more of:
a request for more data regarding a status of a monitoring system;
a request to change the status of the monitoring system ;
a request for visual data regarding the status of the monitoring system; or
a request to take no action.(Kate: ¶0122)
Regarding claim 28: The combination of Kates and Krishnan disclose the system of claim 21, wherein the device comprises one of the one or more computers. (Kate: fig. 4, item 113 or Fig. 5, item 125)
Regarding claim 29: The combination of Kates and Krishnan disclose the system of claim 21, the operations comprising: receiving sensor data; and determining, using the sensor data, whether to perform the one or more actions that correspond to a detected alert (Kate: ¶0044-0047).
Regarding claim 30: The combination of Kates and Krishnan disclose the system of claim 21, the operations comprising:
maintaining local data for the device that is running the operation (Kate: ¶0130:Threshold levels);
wherein determining whether to perform one or more actions that correspond to a detected alert comprises:
determining, using the local data for the device that is running the operation, whether to perform one or more actions that correspond to a detected alert (Kate: ¶0047).
Regarding claim 31: The combination of Kates and Krishnan disclose the system of claim 21, the operations comprising:
determining a location of the device,
wherein determining whether to perform one or more actions that correspond to a detected alert comprises:
determining, using the location of the device, whether to perform the one or more actions that correspond to a detected alert (Kate: ¶0146).
Regarding claim 32: Claim 32 is rejected for the same reason of claim 21.
Regarding claim 34: Claim 34 is rejected for the same reason of claim 23.
Regarding claim 35: Claim 35 is rejected for the same reason of claim 24.
Regarding claim 36: Claim 36 is rejected for the same reason of claim 25.
Regarding claim 38: Claim 38 is rejected for the same reason of claim 27.
Regarding claim 39: Claim 39 is rejected for the same reason of claim 28.
Regarding claim 40: Claim 40 is rejected for the same reason of claim 21.
Claim 22, 26, 33 & 37 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kates (US 2007/0139183) in view of Krishnan et al. (US 2021/0193316) and further in view of Bhakta et al. (US 2007/0049255).
Regarding claim 22: The combination of Kates and Krishnan disclose the system of claim 21 but does not explicitly disclose wherein altering the state of the currently running operation comprises: changing the currently running operation from a foreground presentation on a display of the device to a background operation.
In analogous art regarding alert systems, Bhakta disclose wherein altering the state of the currently running operation comprises: changing the currently running operation from a foreground presentation on a display of the device to a background operation.(¶0027)
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to the one of the ordinary skill in the art to include the feature of wherein altering the state of the currently running operation comprises: changing the currently running operation from a foreground presentation on a display of the device to a background operation, as disclose by Bhakta, to the system of the combination of Kates and Krishnan. The motivation is to increase the chance of catching the users attention.
Regarding claim 26: The combination of Kates and Krishnan disclose the system of claim 21 but does not explicitly disclose wherein: altering the state of the currently running operation comprises lowering a volume of an audio output by the currently running operation; and performing the one or more actions comprises after lowering the volume of the audio output: displaying a visual alert; or presenting an audio alert.
In analogous art regarding alert systems, Bhakta disclose wherein: altering the state of the currently running operation comprises lowering a volume of an audio output by the currently running operation; and performing the one or more actions comprises after lowering the volume of the audio output: displaying a visual alert; or presenting an audio alert. (¶0027)
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to the one of the ordinary skill in the art to include the feature of wherein altering the state of the currently running operation comprises lowering a volume of an audio output by the currently running operation; and performing the one or more actions comprises after lowering the volume of the audio output: displaying a visual alert; or presenting an audio alert, as disclose by Bhakta, to the system of the combination of Kates and Krishnan. The motivation is to increase the chance of catching the users attention.
Regarding claim 33: Claim 33 is rejected for the same reason of claim 22.
Regarding claim 37: Claim 37 is rejected for the same reason of claim 26.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 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 OMAR CASILLASHERNANDEZ whose telephone number is (571)270-5432. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30AM-4:30PM.
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, Davetta Goins can be reached at (571) 272-2957. 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.
/OMAR CASILLASHERNANDEZ/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2689
Prosecution Insights