DETAILED ACTION
Double Patenting
The non-statutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially createddoctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent theunjustified or improper timewise extension of the "right to exclude" granted by a patentand to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutoryobviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claimsare not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinctfrom the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipatedby, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir.1985); In re Van Omum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163USPQ 644.
Claims 21-40 are rejected under obvious double patenting in view of US Patent 1228979, 11831594.
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 a non-statutorydouble patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown tobe commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result ofactivities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign aterminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 21-40 of instant application 19/176,047 are rejected on the ground ofnon-statutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-35 ofUS Patent 11,831,594 B2.
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinctfrom each other because claims 1-35 of US Patent 11,831,594 B2 contain the limitations ofclaims 21-40 of the instant application ‘898 and as such the ‘047 patent anticipates claims 21-40 of the ‘898 instant application.
Claims 21-40 of instant application 19/176,047are rejected on the ground ofnon-statutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 21-40 ofUS Patent 12,289,279 B2.
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinctfrom each other because claims 1-20 of US Patent 12,289,279 B2 contain the limitations ofclaims 21-40 of the instant application ‘898 and as such the ‘047 patent anticipates claims 21-40 of the ‘898 instant application.
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.
Claims 21, 29, 31 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Yelpaala (hereinafter “Yelp”, US Patent Publication 2019/0325996 A1) in view of Ch.ao et al. (hereinafter “Chao”, US Patent Publication 2014/0297395 A1).
As per claims 21, 31, Yelp discloses A computing system, method, and non-transitory computer readable medium for optimized delivery of communications including content to users of a software application, comprising:
a memory comprising instructions (paragraphs [0005, 0065]);
a processor in data communication with the memory and configured to execute the instructions to cause the computing system to:
identify, by a data analytics platform (DAP), a set of communication configurations for communicating with the users of the software application, the users being divided into a plurality of sub-groups (paragraphs [0018, 0090], Patients/users are divided into groups due to filters such as health conditions, location, diagnosis);
assign, by the DAP, a different communication configuration included in the set of communication configurations to each of the plurality of sub-groups (paragraphs [0058-61], Users assign different forms of communication and the selections are stored in the client engagement and CRM platform);
transmit, by a customer engagement platform (CEP), one or more communications to each of the users, wherein the one or more communications that are transmitted to a corresponding user are determined based on the content and the corresponding communication configuration for the sub-group that comprises the corresponding user (paragraphs [0058-61, 0090], Users assign different forms of communication and the selections are stored in the client engagement and CRM platform);
measure, by the DAP, engagement outcomes associated with usage of the corresponding communication configurations in communication with each of the plurality of sub-groups (paragraphs [0079-80]).
Yelp does not explicitly disclose:
allocate, by the DAP, a first communication configuration having an optimal engagement outcome to an exploitation sub-group;
allocate, by the DAP, one or more communication configurations not having the optimal engagement outcome to one or more exploration sub-groups.
However, in an analogous art, Chao teaches analyzing the impact on participants by the campaign, how the participants’ behavior affects by the campaign, reward analytics, etc. Personalized statistics collecting, monitoring, goal-tracking, displaying physical activities history are provided. Recommendations based on personalized history is also given (paragraphs [0045, 0048, 0059).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have found it obvious to implement or incorporate Chao’s allocating configuration having an optimal engagement outcome or not having the optimal engagement outcome to an exploitation or exploration sub-group in Yelp’s method to reward participants for their engagement in reporting and maintaining historical data to determine if goals are met.
As per claims 28, 38, Yelp discloses The computing system of claim 31, wherein:
One or more communication properties include a communication timing, the communication timing including at least a first time of day and a second time of day (paragraph [0060]).
As per claims 30, Yelp does not explicitly disclose The computing system of claim 29, the processor further configured to execute the instructions to cause the computing system to transmit, by the CEP, one or more additional communications to each of the users, wherein the one or more additional communications that are transmitted to a corresponding user are determined based on additional content and either (i) the first communication configuration for the exploitation sub-group that comprises the corresponding user, or (ii) the one or more communication configurations for the one or more exploration sub- groups that comprise the corresponding user.
However, in an analogous art, Chao teaches analyzing the impact on participants by the campaign, how the participants’ behavior affects by the campaign, reward analytics, etc. Personalized statistics collecting, monitoring, goal-tracking, displaying physical activities history are provided. Recommendations based on personalized history is also given (paragraphs [0045, 0048, 0059).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have found it obvious to implement or incorporate Chao’s allocating configuration having an optimal engagement outcome or not having the optimal engagement outcome to an exploitation or exploration sub-group in Yelp’s method to reward participants for their engagement in reporting and maintaining historical data to determine if goals are met.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 22-27, 32-37, 39-40 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BARBARA BURGESS ANYAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3996. The examiner can normally be reached IFP M-F 8am-5pm.
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, Ario Etienne can be reached on 571-272-4001. 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.
August 22, 2026
/BARBARA B Anyan/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2457
Prosecution Insights