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
Status of the Application
Claims 1-20 are currently pending in this case and have been examined and addressed below. This communication is a Non-Final Rejection in response to the Claims filed on 03/19/2025.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/25/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
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 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 1-7 fall within the statutory category of a process. Claims 8-14 fall within the statutory category of an article of manufacture as a computer-readable medium. Claims 15-20 fall within the statutory category of an apparatus or system.
Step 2A, Prong One
As per Claims 1 and 15, the limitations of detecting a second device that is within a threshold distance of the first device and in response to detecting the second device and based on the medical emergency, transmitting medical data for the person, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers management of personal behavior or personal interactions. The steps of detecting a device is within a threshold distance of another device and transmitting medical data based on that determination is activity performed to exchange information between entities which is the management of personal interactions. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers management of personal behavior or personal interactions, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
As per Claim 8, the limitations of in response to detecting that a second device is within a threshold distance of the first device, receiving medical data for the person in a medical emergency, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers management of personal behavior or personal interactions. The steps of detecting a device is within a threshold distance of another device and receiving medical data based on that determination is activity performed to exchange information between entities which is the management of personal interactions. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers management of personal behavior or personal interactions, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements and combination of additional elements do not impose meaningful limits on the judicial exception. In particular, the claims recite the additional element – a first device of a person in a medical emergency, a second device, a non-transitory computer storage media encoded with instructions (claim 8), and a system comprising a computer and storage devices on which are stored instructions (claim 15). The first and second devices, non-transitory computer storage media, and computer and storage devices are recited at a high-level of generality, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Claim 8 also recites the additional elements of causing presentation of at least some of the medical data on a display of the second device in response to receiving the medical data, which amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity, as in MPEP 2106.05(g), because the steps of presenting data on a display is mere data outputting in conjunction with the abstract idea where the limitation amounts to necessary data gathering and outputting, (i.e., all uses of the recited judicial exception require such data gathering or data output). See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (presenting offers and gathering statistics amounted to mere data gathering). Because the additional elements do not impose meaningful limitations on the judicial exception, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As discussed above with the respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of a computing device to perform the method of the invention amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computing component. The system including the first and second devices, non-transitory computer storage media, and computer and storage devices are recited at a high level of generality. The first and second devices and are recited as generic computer components by reciting personal computers, mobile communication device, and other devices (Specification, [0041]). The non-transitory computer storage media is described as computer programs (specification [0071]) and machine-readable storage device, storage substrate, a random or serial access memory device (specification [0071]. The computer and storage devices are described as a general purpose microprocessor or any other kind of central processing unit coupled to mass storage devices such as magnetic, magneto-optical disks, etc. (specification [0075]), which do not add meaningful limitations to the abstract idea beyond mere instructions to apply an exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims also include the additional elements of causing presentation of at least some of the medical data on a display of the second device in response to receiving the medical data which is an element that is well-understood, routine and conventional computer functions in the field of data management because they are claimed at a high level of generality and include receiving or transmitting data as well as presenting data, which have been found to be well-understood, routine and conventional computer functions by the Court (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i) Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink." (emphasis added) and (iv) Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of the computer or improves another technology. The claims do not amount to significantly more than the underlying abstract idea.
Dependent Claims
Dependent Claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 add further limitations which are also directed to an abstract idea. Claims 2 and 16 include determining whether the second device is authenticated to receive medical data in response to detecting the second device and responsive to determining the second device is authenticated to receive medical data, transmit the medical data. These steps describe determining permission to access particular data and providing access to the data which is managing the interactions between people as the interchange of information is an exchange between two parties. This falls into the abstract grouping of certain methods of organizing human activity. Claims 3 and 17 include transmitting an authentication request message, in response receiving an authentication response message, and determining whether the authentication message is valid and the second device is authenticated to receive the medical data, which is directed to certain methods of organizing human activity for the same reasons as claims 2 and 16. Claims 4 and 18 include determining whether an identifier for the second device is included on a list of approved recipient devices and in response, transmit the medical data, which directed to certain methods of organizing human activity because the determining an identifier is approved and transmitting the data to an approved entity is managing the exchange of data using the process of authenticating the entity. Claims 5 and 19 include broadcasting data to a plurality of devices which further specifies or limits the independent claims and is therefore directed to the same abstract idea. Claims 6 and 20 include predicting the second device is for a first responder which is recited broadly, such that it can be performed in the human mind and therefore falls into the abstract grouping of mental processes. The claims also include the additional element of receiving application programming information that includes emergency vehicle location, which amounts to mere data gathering and is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity as receiving and transmitting data. Claim 7 includes providing an audible notification that help is on the way base on the second device being for a first responder, which is recited broadly such that it amounts to data outputting as presenting data, which is insignificant extra-solution activity that is well-understood, routine, and conventional as per MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). Claim 9 includes receiving a request for presentation of a notification that indicates medical data is available, presenting the notification, receiving input of a selection that triggers are quest for medical data, requesting the medical data, and receiving the medial data in response to the request which amounts to certain methods of organizing human activity as this describes an interaction for information exchange similar to the independent claims that is management of personal interactions. Claims 10, 11, and 12 are similar to Claims 3 and 17 because they also describe the process of authenticating an entity for access to the medical data which amounts to certain methods of organizing human activity. Claim 13 merely describes an exchange of data which amounts to further specifying the certain methods of organizing human activity. Claim 14 provides a description of the medical data which is directed to the same abstract idea as Claim 8. Because the additional elements do not impose meaningful limitations on the judicial exception and the additional elements are well-understood, routine and conventional functionalities in the art, the claims are directed to an abstract idea and are not patent eligible.
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.
Claims 1-2, 5, 9-10, 14-16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fernandez (US 2015/0350811 A1), hereinafter Fernandez, in view of Koch et al (WO 2023/152598 A1), hereinafter Koch.
As per Claims 1 and 15, Fernandez discloses a system comprising one or more computers and one or more storage devices on which are stored instructions that are operable, when executed by the one or more computers, to cause the one or more computers to perform the method ([0074-0075]) comprising:
detecting, by a first device of a person in a medical emergency, a second device that is within a threshold distance of the first device ([0048] a victim of a medical emergency delivers an alert to communication devices within a predetermined range; [0043] all communication devices which are Bluetooth enabled and have the system application are recipients of the message, i.e. detected using Bluetooth as in [0046]/[0059] where one device can communicate with plurality of devices); and
in response to detecting the second device and based on the medical emergency, transmitting, to the second device, data for the person ([0025], [0028] deliver emergency content to a network of recipients which are detected in a predetermined range, [0048] where the emergency is a medical emergency of the device user/victim; [0042] message sent to device contains emergency warning and personal information).
However, Fernandez may not explicitly disclose the following which is taught by Koch: the data for the person is medical data ([0037] message indicating an acute health event is wirelessly transmitted to another computing device, where the message includes physiological data, [0093] second data received by the second device includes medical information, location of first device).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing of the present application to combine the known concept of transmitting medical data in the event of an emergency from Koch with the known transmission of data from one device to another during an event such as an emergency from Fernandez in order for recipients of the information to get a real time health data indicating the status of a patient during a determined health event so that a person can be treated quickly to prevent death (Koch [0003]).
As per Claims 2 and 16, Fernandez and Koch discloses the limitations of Claims 1 and 15. Fernandez also teaches in response to detecting the second device, determining whether the second device is authenticated to receive the data ([0007] authentication phase generates a list of devices which are paired with the first device and therefore are authorized to communicate with first device, [0011] messages are only delivered to recipients who share a unique/private code),
wherein transmitting the medical data for the person is responsive to determining that the second device is authenticated to receive the data ([0007] authentication phase generates a list of devices which are paired with the first device and therefore are authorized to communicate with first device, [0011] messages are only delivered to recipients who share a unique/private code).
However, Fernandez may not explicitly disclose the following which is taught by Koch: the data for the person is medical data ([0037] message indicating an acute health event is wirelessly transmitted to another computing device, where the message includes physiological data, [0093] second data received by the second device includes medical information, location of first device).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing of the present application to combine the known concept of transmitting medical data in the event of an emergency from Koch with the known transmission of data from one device to another during an event such as an emergency from Fernandez in order for recipients of the information to get a real time health data indicating the status of a patient during a determined health event so that a person can be treated quickly to prevent death (Koch [0003]).
As per Claims 5 and 19, Fernandez and Koch discloses the limitations of Claims 1 and 15. Fernandez also teaches transmitting the medical data comprises broadcasting the medical data to a plurality of devices including the second device ([0043] broadcast delivered from sender to all communication devices in the network which have application; [0059] deliver content from master device to slave communication devices; [0046] master device communicates to multiple slave devices).
As per Claim 8, Fernandez discloses the limitations of one or more non-transitory computer storage media encoded with instructions that, when executed by one or more computers, cause the one or more computers to perform operations ([0074]) comprising:
in response to a first device detecting that a second device is within a threshold distance of the first device, receiving, by the second device and from the first device of a person in a medical emergency, data for the person ([0048] a victim of a medical emergency delivers an alert to communication devices within a predetermined range; [0043] all communication devices which are Bluetooth enabled and have the system application are recipients of the message, i.e. detected using Bluetooth as in [0046]/[0059] where one device can communicate with plurality of devices); and
in response to receiving the data, causing presentation of at least some of the medical data on a display of the second device ([0013] broadcast message is visible on display screen of the slave device).
However, Fernandez may not explicitly disclose the following which is taught by Koch: the data for the person is medical data ([0037] message indicating an acute health event is wirelessly transmitted to another computing device, where the message includes physiological data, [0093] second data received by the second device includes medical information, location of first device).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing of the present application to combine the known concept of transmitting medical data in the event of an emergency from Koch with the known transmission of data from one device to another during an event such as an emergency from Fernandez in order for recipients of the information to get a real time health data indicating the status of a patient during a determined health event so that a person can be treated quickly to prevent death (Koch [0003]).
As per Claim 9, Fernandez and Koch discloses the limitations of Claim 8. Fernandez also teaches in response to the first device detecting that the second device is within the threshold distance of the first device ([0048] a victim of a medical emergency delivers an alert to communication devices within a predetermined range; [0043] all communication devices which are Bluetooth enabled and have the system application are recipients of the message, i.e. detected using Bluetooth as in [0046]/[0059] where one device can communicate with plurality of devices, [0021] messages are only communicated to recipients determined to be in a predetermined range),
receiving, from the first device, a request for presentation of a notification by the second device that indicates that data is available for presentation ([0019] master communication device (first device) sends message request to a slave device (second device) where the request is for sending a personal broadcast, [0018] personal broadcast includes customized personal information for the recipient);
presenting, by the second device, the notification that includes a user interface element that triggers a request for the data ([0019] personal code module shows the symbols for the code to enter in the slave device);
receiving input that indicates selection of the user interface element and triggers a request for the data ([0019] slave communication device must input the same code as the mast communication device to receive the message); and
requesting, from the first device, the medical data, wherein receiving, from the first device, the medical data in responsive to requesting the medical data ([0019]/[0024] messages/broadcasts are displayed as modules through a graphical user interface on the slave communication device).
However, Fernandez may not explicitly disclose the following which is taught by Koch: the data for the person is medical data ([0037] message indicating an acute health event is wirelessly transmitted to another computing device, where the message includes physiological data, [0093] second data received by the second device includes medical information, location of first device).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing of the present application to combine the known concept of transmitting medical data in the event of an emergency from Koch with the known transmission of data from one device to another during an event such as an emergency from Fernandez in order for recipients of the information to get a real time health data indicating the status of a patient during a determined health event so that a person can be treated quickly to prevent death (Koch [0003]).
As per Claim 10, Fernandez and Koch discloses the limitations of Claim 9. Fernandez also teaches requesting the medical data comprises authenticating the second device for access to the medical data ([0007] authentication phase generates a list of devices which are paired with the first device and therefore are authorized to communicate with first device, [0011] messages are only delivered to recipients who share a unique/private code); and
receiving the medical data is responsive to successfully completing the authentication of the second device for access to the medical data ([0007] authentication phase generates a list of devices which are paired with the first device and therefore are authorized to communicate with first device, [0011] messages are only delivered to recipients who share a unique/private code).
As per Claim 14, Fernandez and Koch discloses the limitations of Claim 8. Koch also teaches the medical data identifies the person, a geographic location of the person, and information about the medical emergency ([0046] information in the message includes information about the medical emergency including physiological parameters, time of health event; location of patient; [0048] message includes description of patient, [0093] second data received by the second device includes medical information, location of first device).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing of the present application to combine the known concept of transmitting medical data in the event of an emergency from Koch with the known transmission of data from one device to another during an event such as an emergency from Fernandez in order for recipients of the information to get a real time health data indicating the status of a patient during a determined health event so that a person can be treated quickly to prevent death (Koch [0003]).
Claims 3-4, 12-13, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fernandez (US 2015/0350811 A1), in view of Koch (WO 2023/152598 A1), in view of Spence (US 2010/0115609 A1), hereinafter Spence.
As per Claims 3 and 17, Fernandez and Koch discloses the limitations of Claims 2 and 16. However, Fernandez and Koch may not explicitly disclose the following which is taught by Spence: determining whether the second device is authenticated to receive the medical data ([0041] authentication module to ensure medical data is accessed by authorized persons only) comprises:
transmitting, using a first instance of an application executing on the first device, an authentication request message to the second device ([0083-0084] when mobile user requests access, send a request for authentication to the mobile user based on user information in the user profile in memory);
in response to transmitting the authentication request message, receiving, from a second instance of the application executing on the second device, an authentication response message ([0084] mobile user sends user ID and password in response); and
determining whether the authentication response message is valid and the second device is authenticated to receive the medical data ([0043] determine the second device (of the emergency responder) is authorized to access medical information and open a channel for access to medical information; [0084] mobile user ID and password is compared to that in memory and determines if a match occurs for authentication of the user).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing of the present application to combine the known concept of authenticating a recipient of medical data in the event of an emergency from Spence with the known transmission of medical data from one device to another during an event such as an emergency from Fernandez and Koch in order for a first responder on the scene of an emergency to receive detailed private health data of the victim to that they can provide proper care to the victim (Spence [0001]).
As per Claims 4 and 18, Fernandez and Koch discloses the limitations of Claims 2 and 16. However, Fernandez and Koch may not explicitly disclose the following which is taught by Spence: determining whether the second device is authenticated to receive the medical data comprises determining whether an identifier for the second device is included on a list of approved recipient devices ([0084] mobile user ID and password is compared to that in memory and determines if a match occurs for authentication of the user); and
transmitting the medical data for the person is responsive to determining that the identifier for the second device is included on a list of approved recipient devices ([0043] determine the second device (of the emergency responder) is authorized to access medical information and open a channel for access to medical information; [0084] mobile user ID and password is compared to that in memory and determines if a match occurs for authentication of the user, see Fig. 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing of the present application to combine the known concept of authenticating a recipient of medical data in the event of an emergency from Spence with the known transmission of medical data from one device to another during an event such as an emergency from Fernandez and Koch in order for a first responder on the scene of an emergency to receive detailed private health data of the victim to that they can provide proper care to the victim (Spence [0001]).
As per Claim 12, Fernandez and Koch discloses the limitations of Claim 8. Fernandez also teaches in response to the first device detecting that the second device is within the threshold distance of the first device ([0048] a victim of a medical emergency delivers an alert to communication devices within a predetermined range; [0043] all communication devices which are Bluetooth enabled and have the system application are recipients of the message, i.e. detected using Bluetooth as in [0046]/[0059] where one device can communicate with plurality of devices).
However, Fernandez and Koch may not explicitly disclose the following which is taught by Spence: transmitting, to a first instance of an application executing on the first device and by a second instance of the application executing on the second device, authentication information to enable the first instance of the application to determine whether the second instance of the application is authenticated ([0084] mobile user sends user ID and password in response),
wherein receiving the medical data is responsive to the first instance of the application determining that the second instance of the application is authenticated ([0043] determine the second device (of the emergency responder) is authorized to access medical information and open a channel for access to medical information; [0084] mobile user ID and password is compared to that in memory and determines if a match occurs for authentication of the user).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing of the present application to combine the known concept of authenticating a recipient of medical data in the event of an emergency from Spence with the known transmission of medical data from one device to another during an event such as an emergency from Fernandez and Koch in order for a first responder on the scene of an emergency to receive detailed private health data of the victim to that they can provide proper care to the victim (Spence [0001]).
As per Claim 13, Fernandez and Koch discloses the limitations of Claim 8. However, Fernandez and Koch may not explicitly disclose the following which is taught by Spence: transmitting, by the second device and to the first device, an identifier for the second device ([0084] mobile user sends user ID and password in response),
wherein receiving the medical data is responsive to transmitting the identifier for the second device to the first device ([0043] determine the second device (of the emergency responder) is authorized to access medical information and open a channel for access to medical information; [0084] mobile user ID and password is compared to that in memory and determines if a match occurs for authentication of the user).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing of the present application to combine the known concept of authenticating a recipient of medical data in the event of an emergency from Spence with the known transmission of medical data from one device to another during an event such as an emergency from Fernandez and Koch in order for a first responder on the scene of an emergency to receive detailed private health data of the victim to that they can provide proper care to the victim (Spence [0001]).
Claims 6 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fernandez (US 2015/0350811 A1), in view of Koch (WO 2023/152598 A1), in view of Zamora et al. (US 8,483,651 B1), hereinafter Zamora.
As per Claims 6 and 20, Fernandez and Koch discloses the limitations of Claims 1 and 15. However, Fernandez and Koch may not explicitly disclose the following which is taught by Zamora: also teaches detecting the second device comprises:
receiving application programming interface information that includes emergency vehicle location data (see Fig. 3 receive emergency-vehicle location data, Col. 1:lines21-23 receiving emergency vehicle location data; Col. 6:lines 16-27 application server receives and analyzes the GPS data of the emergency vehicle); and
predicting, using the emergency vehicle location data, that the second device is for a first responder (Col. 1:lines 25-26 and lines 32-34 determining the emergency vehicle is active, Examiner interprets this to read on predicting the vehicle is the first responder; Col. 4:lines 15-16 and lines 30-33 emergency vehicle becomes active and determined the vehicle is active and proximate to the user, i.e. the first responder to the user).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing of the present application to combine the known concept of determining the location of an emergency vehicle and determining this is a first responder from Zamora with the known transmission of medical data from one device to another during an event such as an emergency from Fernandez and Koch in order for a victim or other person with the victim to be informed of when responders will reach the victim.
As per Claim 7, Fernandez and Koch discloses the limitations of Claim 1. However, Fernandez and Koch may not explicitly disclose the following which is taught by Zamora: providing, in response to predicting that the second device is for a first responder, an audible notification that help is on the way (Col. 1:lines 30-31 provide notification to the mobile device; Col. 3:lines 67-Col.4:lines 1-4 notification sent to user as a vibration, light, text message, Bluetooth communication; Col., 8:lines 2-6 notification includes a differential ring, i.e. audible, or vibration; Examiner notes that the manner of notification vibration or audible is a matter of design choice).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing of the present application to combine the known concept of determining the location of an emergency vehicle and determining this is a first responder from Zamora with the known transmission of medical data from one device to another during an event such as an emergency from Fernandez and Koch in order for a victim or other person with the victim to be informed of when responders will reach the victim.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fernandez (US 2015/0350811 A1), in view of Koch (WO 2023/152598 A1), in view of McClendon IV, et al. (US 2020/0252780 A1), hereinafter McClendon.
As per Claim 11, Fernandez and Koch discloses the limitations of Claim 9. However, Fernandez and Koch may not explicitly disclose the following which is taught by McClendon: receiving, at the second device and prior to receiving the request for presentation, a push notification ([0130] messages are sent to devices as alerts even when the device is turned off, host is changed to alert display and presents alert).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing of the present application to combine the known concept of receiving a push notification from McClendon with the known transmission of medical data from one device to another during an event such as an emergency from Fernandez and Koch in order to ensure emergency messages are received by all specified recipients for the safety of the public and those related to the emergency event (McClendon [0003]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Sennett et al. (US 2009/0247114 A1) teaches an emergency alert system in which a mobile device sends an emergency alert within a particular location range.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Evangeline Barr whose telephone number is (571)272-0369. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 8:00 am to 4:00 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, Fonya Long can be reached at 571-270-5096. 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.
/EVANGELINE BARR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3682