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 10/15/2025.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 10/15/2025 and 03/11/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Double Patenting
The non-statutory 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 non-statutory obviousness-type 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-7 and 14-20 of the instant application are rejected on the ground of non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3, 5-8, 15-17, and 19-20 of US Patent No. 12,475,981 (hereafter, ‘981 Patent). Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. Both the instant application and Claim 1 of the ‘981 Patent are drawn to a method of rescheduling notifications based on received health information. The claim limitations of these two inventions are substantially identical with the exception of specifically a first device receiving first health information.
Instant claim 1, recites: receiving, by a first device, first health information; rescheduling, by the first device, a first notification on the first device to be displayed at a first time based at least in part on the first health information, wherein the first notification was scheduled to be displayed at a second time; and transmitting, by the first device, a hold instruction to a second device, wherein the hold instruction instructs the second device to hold a second notification until the second device receives the first health information, wherein the second notification corresponds to the first notification.
Claim 1 of the ‘981 Patent recites: receiving, by a second device, a hold instruction from a first device, wherein the hold instruction instructs the second device to hold a second notification until the second device receives first health information, wherein the first device is configured to transmit the hold instruction based on rescheduling a first notification on the first device to be displayed at a first time based at least in part on the first health information, wherein the first notification was previously scheduled to be displayed at a second time, wherein the second notification corresponds to the first notification; holding, by the second device, the second notification; receiving, by the second device, the first health information; and rescheduling, by the second device, the second notification to be displayed at a third time based at least in part on the first health information.
Claim 1 of the ’981 patent embodies all of the limitations of Claim 1 of the instant application with the exception of: receiving, by a first device, first health information. At the time the application was filed receiving first health information by a first device was old and well-known to persons having ordinary skill in the art. For example, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0336530 by inventor Johnson at Pars [0024] discloses, the electronic display device, 30, may also collect health data and [0028] health data is transmitted from health monitoring devices to computing device, [0029] where the health data is automatically transmitted to the device. The Johnson reference in combination with the ‘981 Patent renders the claims of the instant application not patentably distinct.
Claim 14 of the instant application is not patentably distinct from Claim 15 of the ‘981 Patent. Both the instant application and Claim 15 of the ‘981 Patent are drawn to a non-transitory computer-readable media comprising computer-executable instructions, when executed by processors on a first device, cause the processors to perform a method of rescheduling notifications based on received health information. The claim limitations of these two inventions are substantially identical with the exception of specifically a first device receiving first health information. Claim 15 of the ’981 patent embodies all of the limitations of Claim 14 of the instant application with the exception of: receiving, by a first device, first health information, which is taught by Johnson, as described above. The Johnson reference in combination with the ‘981 Patent renders the claims of the instant application not patentably distinct.
The additional limitations of Claims 2-7 of the instant application are anticipated by Claims 2-3, 5-8 of the ‘981 Patent and the additional limitations of Claims 15-20 are anticipated by Claims 16-17, 19-20, and 7-8 of the ‘981 Patent.
For these reasons, claims 1-7 and 14-20 of the instant application are not identical to claims 1-3, 5-8, 15-17, and 19-20 of US Patent No. 12,475,981 but they are not patentably distinct.
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 8-13 fall within the statutory category of an apparatus or system. Claims 14-20 fall within the statutory category of an article of manufacture as a computer-readable medium.
Step 2A, Prong One
As per Claims 1, 8, and 14, the limitations of receiving first health information; rescheduling a first notification of the first device to be displayed at a first time based at least in part on the first health information, wherein the first notification was scheduled to be displayed at a second time; and transmitting a hold instruction, wherein the hold instruction instructs the second device to hold a second notification until the second device receives the first health information, wherein the second notification corresponds to the first notification, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, describes managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, including following rules or instructions. The steps of receiving first health information, rescheduling a first notification of the first device, and transmitting a hold instructions are concepts which manage personal behaviors or personal interactions. Receiving health information, rescheduling a notification to be displayed, and transmitting a hold instruction are actions which manage notifications sent to a person from a device. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of managing personal behaviors 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 elements – a first device which comprises a memory and processor in communication with the memory, and a computer readable media comprising computer-executable instructions. The first device comprising a memory and processor and computer-readable media in these steps 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. The claims also recites the additional elements of transmitting a hold instruction to a second device, which amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception. The second device is recited at a high-level of generality such that it is a general purpose computer. As per MPEP 2106.05(f)(2), the use of a general purpose computer to receive data amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception. 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 elements of a first device and computer-readable media to perform the method of the invention amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computing component. The "first device” is recited at a high level of generality and are recited as generic computer components by reciting smartphone (Specification [0023, 0024, 0025]), which do not add meaningful limitations to the abstract idea beyond mere instructions to apply an exception. The computer-readable media is recited at a high-level of generality and is recited as RAM, ROM, flash memory, etc. (specification [0127]), which do not add meaningful limitations to the abstract idea beyond mere instructions to apply an exception. The claims also recite a second device for receiving data. The second device is described as general purpose computers such as a tablet, laptop, etc. (Specification [0023], [0024]), 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. 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, 9-13, and 15-20 add further limitations which are also directed to an abstract idea. For example, Claims 2-3, 9-10, and 15-16 include hold the second notification by preventing and dismissing the second notification from being displayed until first health information is received and processed, which also amounts to managing personal behavior and personal interactions and therefore falls into the abstract grouping of certain methods of organizing human activity for the same reasons as the independent claims. Claims 4, 11, and 17 include transmitting the first health information to a service provider, which falls into the abstract grouping of certain methods of organizing human activity because sharing information with a person is managing personal interactions. Claims 5, 12, and 18 include a description of the second device as being capable of being unlocked from a closed access state, which merely further describes the device. The claims also include transmitting a request for the first health information to the service provider, which falls into the abstract grouping of certain methods of organizing human activity because requesting information is managing personal interactions. Claims 6, 13, and 19 include ignoring the hold instruction when an expiration date has elapsed, which further specifies or limits the abstract idea and is directed to certain methods of organizing human activity for the same reasons as the independent claims. Claims 7 and 20 similarly include ignoring the hold instruction when a criteria is not met, which further specifies or limits the abstract idea and is directed to certain methods of organizing human activity for the same reasons as the independent claims. 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.
Subject Matter Free of the Prior Art
The following is an examiner’s statement of subject matter free of the prior art: The limitations in Claims 1, 8, and 14 stating: transmit a hold instruction to a second device, wherein the hold instruction instructs the second device to hold a second notification until the second device receives the first health information, wherein the second notification corresponds to the first notification is free of the prior art. The most remarkable prior arts of record are as follows:
Johnson et al. (US 2018/0336530 A1) teaches receiving health information at a user device and based on received information rescheduling a health task notification to be shown at a later time. Johnson also teaches transmitting the health information to a second device.
Poeze et al. (US 2022/0005599 A1) teaches receiving health information and synchronization the data between different devices.
Neither Johnson nor Poeze teach on transmitting a hold instruction to a second device instructing the second device to hold a second notification until the second device receives the first health information. Therefore, claims 1-20 are free of the prior art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Johnson et al. (US 2018/0336530 A1) and Poeze et al. (US 2022/0005599 A1) as described above.
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
Prosecution Insights