DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is responsive to the Request for Continued Examination (RCE) filed under 37 CFR §1.53(d) for the instant application on December 2, 2025. The Applicants have properly set forth the RCE, which has been entered into the application, and an examination on the merits follows herewith. The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C 103 (as opposed to AIA 35 U.S.C. 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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 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 negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claims 24, 25, 27, 32, 34, 35, 37, 41, 43, 44, 46 and 47 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0245174 to Rydenhag et al. (“Rydenhag”), over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0072363 to Mandel et al. (“Mandel 1”), and also over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0035681 to Mandel et al. (“Mandel 2”).
Regarding claims 24, 34 and 43, Rydenhag describes a method and device for obtaining message data items and displaying them in a two-dimensional scheme (see e.g. paragraphs 0011 and 0026). Like claimed, Rydenhag particularly teaches:
accessing, by a computing device, a set of email messages from an email mailbox of a user (see e.g. paragraphs 0011 and 0105: Rydenhag teaches obtaining message data items via a messaging application executing on a computing device. Rydenhag discloses that the message data items can be email messages from a user’s email mailbox such as a message inbox – see e.g. paragraphs 0108, 0112 and 0114.);
analyzing, via the computing device, the set of email messages, and based on the analysis, identifying message content of each message (see e.g. paragraphs 0013 and 0109: Rydenhag discloses that each message data item can comprise a subject, sender/recipient, attachment, message body, header and/or importance. Rydenhag discloses that the computing device can generate a display of the message data items in a two-dimensional scheme, wherein each message data item is displayed to comprise at least a portion of the message body and is arranged in the two-dimensional scheme according to its associated subject, sender/recipient, attachment, message body, header and/or importance – see e.g. paragraphs 0011, 0014, 0015, and 0110-0112. Accordingly, the computing device necessarily analyzes the set of message data items to identify the message content, e.g. the message body, of each message data item so as to appropriately display the message content with each message item in the two-dimensional scheme.);
generating, by the computing device, a message card for each email message in the set of email messages, each message card comprising a portion of identified message content of a respective email message in the set of email messages, each message card further comprising an action toolbar comprising indicators of a plurality of actions, the plurality of actions comprising card-level and message-level actions, at least one message-level action enabling interaction with a remaining portion of the identified message content of the respective email message without having to open the email message or message card (see e.g. paragraphs 0011, 0014, 0015, and 0110-0112: as noted above, Rydenhag discloses that the computing device can then generate a display of the message data items in a two-dimensional scheme, wherein each message data item is displayed to comprise at least a portion of the message body. Rydenhag particularly demonstrates that each message data item is displayed via a message card in the two-dimensional scheme, wherein the message card comprises details related to the message such as the sender, date/time, and subject, in addition to at least a portion of the message body and any attachments – see e.g. paragraphs 0113 and 0114, and FIG. 5. Rydenhag further teaches that each message card can display, in response to user selection of the message card, an action toolbar comprising objects indicating a plurality of actions that can be applied with respect to the message and/or card – see e.g. paragraphs 0019-0020 and 0119, and FIG. 6. These actions can particularly include a “delete” action that understandably results in deletion of the message and corresponding message card, and a “dismiss” action that understandably results in removal of the corresponding message card – see e.g. paragraphs 0020 and 0119. The “delete” and/or “dismiss” actions are considered “card-level actions” like claimed. In addition, Rydenhag discloses that the actions indicated in the action toolbar can also include “reply,” “forward” and “save” actions, inter alia – see e.g. paragraphs 0019-0020 and 0119. Such actions are considered “message-level actions” like claimed. The save action understandably enables interaction with, e.g. saving, a remaining portion of the message content of the respective email message without having to open the email message or message card – see e.g. paragraphs 0019-0020, 0025, 0114 and 0119, and FIG. 6.);
configuring, via the computing device, a graphical display format of the message cards, the graphical display format providing an initial display of how each message card is displayed respective to other message cards (see e.g. paragraphs 0113 and 0114, and FIG. 5: like noted above, Rydenhag demonstrates that each message data item is displayed via a message card in the two-dimensional scheme, wherein the graphical display format of each message card is configured to provide details related to the message such as the sender, date/time, and subject of the message, in addition to at least a portion of the message body and any attachments. Rydenhag thus teaches configuring a graphical display format of the message cards, the format providing an initial display of how each message card is displayed respective to other message cards.); and
communicating, by the computing device, the graphical display format to a display device, the communication causing an initial display of each message card comprising the portion of identified message content (see e.g. paragraphs 0011, 0043, 0113, and 0127: Rydenhag teaches outputting the two-dimensional scheme to a display. Like noted above, in the two-dimensional scheme, each message data item is initially displayed via a message card that comprises a portion of identified message content of the message data item and wherein an action toolbar can be displayed within the message card to enable interaction with the message content represented by the displayed message card – see e.g. paragraphs 0112-0114 and 0119; and FIG. 5.).
Accordingly, Rydenhag teaches a method similar to that of claim 24. Rydenhag discloses that such teachings can be implemented via program instructions stored on a non-transitory computer readable medium (see e.g. paragraphs 0128-0129). A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing program instructions to implement the above-described teachings of Rydenhag is considered a non-transitory computer readable storage medium similar to that of claim 34. Rydenhag further discloses that such teachings can be implemented via a device comprising a processor and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium that stores program logic that is executable by the processor to perform the above actions (see e.g. paragraphs 0043, 0046-0047, 0088, and 0108-0113). Such a device for implementing the above-described teachings of Rydenhag is considered a computing device similar to that of claim 43. Rydenhag, however, discloses that the action toolbar may be displayed in response to a user input (see e.g. paragraph 0119), and so does not disclose that the action toolbar and its indicators of a plurality of actions are configured to be persistently displayed, without regard to a selection state of the message card, within the message card when the message card is displayed, as is required by each of claims 24, 34 and 43. Moreover, Rydenhag does not explicitly disclose that the action toolbar comprises at least one card-level action comprising a navigation action that enables navigation between the displayed message cards, wherein the enabled message card navigation between the displayed message cards is distinguished from navigation between email messages of the set of email messages used to generate the message cards, as is further required by claims 24, 34 and 43.
Mandel 1 generally describes a method and process for displaying and sorting messages (e.g. email messages) in a communication system (see e.g. paragraph 0010). Regarding the claimed invention, Mandel 1 particularly teaches displaying an action toolbar with each message, wherein the action toolbar comprises indicators (i.e. buttons) of a plurality of actions, including an indicator for a navigation action that enables navigation between displayed messages (see e.g. paragraphs 0010, 0029, 0034 and 0038-0042, and FIGS. 3 and 6). The indicator for the navigation action, for example, enables navigation between different messages in a thread (see e.g. paragraph 0042 and FIG. 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Rydenhag and Mandel 1 before him at the time the invention was made, to modify the method, non-transitory computer-readable storage medium and computing device taught by Rydenhag such that the action toolbar comprises a navigation action like taught by Mandel 1, which enables navigation between the displayed message items. It would have been advantageous to one of ordinary skill to utilize such a navigation action, because it would allow the user to more easily move through related messages, threads and folders, as is taught by Mandel 1 (see e.g. paragraphs 0009-0010 and 0038-0042). As Rydenhag is directed to displaying message cards to represent respective message items, it would have particularly been apparent to enable such a navigation action between the message cards via the navigation action. Such a navigation action is thus distinguished from navigation between the email messages used to generate the message cards (i.e. navigating between email message cards is different from the more general, navigation through email messages per se). Additionally, as noted above, Mandel 1 teaches that the navigation action enables navigation between different messages in a thread. Such a navigation action applied to the message cards taught by Rydenhag can additionally or alternatively be considered a navigation action that is distinguished from navigation between email messages of the set of email messages used to generate the message cards (i.e. navigating from an unread message card to a previously-read message card in a thread is different from navigating between email messages of the set of email messages in the same unread mailbox used to generate the message cards.). Accordingly, Rydenhag and Mandel 1 are considered to teach, inter alia, message cards that comprise an action toolbar comprising indicators of a plurality of actions, the plurality of actions comprising card-level and message-level actions, wherein at least one message-level action enables interaction with a remaining portion of the identified message content of the respective email message without having to open the email message or message card, and wherein the action toolbar comprises at least one card-level action comprising a navigation action enabling navigation between the displayed message cards, the enabled message card navigation between the displayed message cards being distinguished from navigation between email messages of the set of email messages used to generate the message cards. Rydenhag and Mandel 1, however, do not disclose that the action toolbar and its indicators of a plurality of actions are configured to be persistently displayed, without regard to a selection state of the message card, within the message card when the message card is displayed, as is required by each of claims 24, 34 and 43.
Similar to Rydenhag, Mandel 2 describes a user interface for presenting communications (e.g. email messages), whereby each communication is presented via a message card comprising a portion of message content of the communication (see e.g. paragraphs 0010, 0035-0036 and 0079, and FIGS. 1A and 12). Mandel 2 particularly demonstrates that each message card also comprises at least one persistently-displayed toolbar (i.e. a navigation tool) comprising indicators of a plurality of actions, wherein the action toolbar and its indictors of a plurality of actions are configured to be persistently displayed, without regard to a selection state of the message card, within the message card when the message card is displayed (see e.g. paragraphs 0041-0042 and 0079, and FIGS. 1 and 12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Rydenhag, Mandel 1 and Mandel 2 before him at the time the invention was made, to modify the method, non-transitory computer-readable storage medium and computing device taught by Rydenhag and Mandel 1 such that the action toolbar and its indicators of a plurality of actions are persistently displayed, without regard to a selection state of the message card, within the message card when the message card is displayed, as is done by Mandel 2. It would have been advantageous to one of ordinary skill to utilize such a combination because it would enable the user to more efficiently access the actions provided by the toolbar (i.e. the user would not have to select or open the corresponding message first), as is evident from Mandel 2 (see e.g. paragraphs 0041-0042 and 0079, and FIGS. 1 and 12). Accordingly, Rydenhag, Mandel 1 and Mandel 2 are considered to teach, to one of ordinary skill in the art, a method like that of claim 24, a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium like that of claim 34, and a computing device like that of claim 43.
As per claims 25 and 35, Rydenhag further teaches analyzing the set of messages, and based on the analysis, identifying metadata (e.g. a sender, date/time, and/or subject) related to the messages, and causing the metadata to be displayed within each corresponding message’s message card (see e.g. paragraphs 0011-0014, 0109, 0112-0113, and FIG. 5). Accordingly, Rydenhag, Mandel 1 and Mandel 2 further teach a method and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium like that of claims 25 and 35, respectively.
As per claims 27 and 37, Rydenhag discloses that the metadata comprises information selected from the group consisting of: domain identifier, date, sender identifier, and importance identifier (see e.g. paragraphs 0013 and 0109: Rydenhag discloses that each message data item can comprise a subject, sender/recipient, attachment, message body, header and/or importance.). Accordingly, Rydenhag, Mandel 1 and Mandel 2 further teach a method and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium like that of claims 27 and 37, respectively.
As per claims 32 and 41, Rydenhag further teaches determining, based upon the analysis, that a message comprises an attachment, and generating an image that is to be displayed within a message card for said message (see e.g. paragraphs 0013, 0112-0113 and 0125, and FIG. 5: Rydenhag discloses that any attachments included with a message data item are each represented via a thumbnail image. In response to determining that a message data item comprises an attachment, the computing device thus necessarily generates an image, i.e. the thumbnail image, which is to be displayed within a message card for the message data item.). Accordingly, Rydenhag, Mandel 1 and Mandel 2 further teach a method and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium like that of claims 32 and 41, respectively.
As per claim 44, Rydenhag further teaches that the card-level actions can include a delete action that understandably enables deletion of a corresponding message card (see e.g. paragraphs 0020 and 0119). Accordingly, the above-described combination of Rydenhag, Mandel 1 and Mandel 2 further teaches a method like that of claim 44.
As per claim 46, Rydenhag teaches that the card-level actions can include a delete action that understandably enables deletion of a corresponding message card and corresponding email message (see e.g. paragraphs 0020 and 0119). Accordingly, the above-described combination of Rydenhag, Mandel 1 and Mandel 2 is further considered to teach a method like that of claim 46.
Regarding claim 47, Rydenhag teaches that the graphical display format is configured so that two or more of the message cards are grouped within a portion (e.g. a column) of the graphical display format in accordance with particular criteria (e.g. according to sender/recipient) (see e.g. paragraphs 0023-0024, 0110-0111 and 0121). Rydenhag however does not explicitly teach that the message cards are grouped in accordance with a user-specified grouping, as is further required by claim 47. Mandel 1 nevertheless teaches configuring a graphical display format so that two or more messages (e.g. email messages) are grouped within a portion of the graphical display format (e.g. within a folder) in accordance with a user-specified grouping (see e.g. paragraphs 0020-0021 and 0028). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Rydenhag, Mandel 1 and Mandel 2 before him at the time the invention was made, to further modify the method taught by Rydenhag, Mandel 1 and Mandel 2 so that the messages (i.e. the message cards) are grouped in accordance with a user-specified grouping, as is taught by Mandel 1. It would have been advantageous to one of ordinary skill to utilize such a combination because it would enable the user to customize the display according to his or her preferences, as is evident from Mandel 1 (see e.g. paragraphs 0020-0021 and 0028). Accordingly, Rydenhag, Mandel 1 and Mandel 2 are further considered to teach, to one of ordinary skill in the art, a method like that of claim 47.
Claims 26 and 36 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Rydenhag, Mandel 1 and Mandel 2, which is described above, over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0104186 to Wieneke et al. (“Wieneke”), and also over U.S. Patent No. 8,073,910 to Tokuda et al. (“Tokuda”).
As described above, the combination of Rydenhag, Mandel 1 and Mandel 2 teaches a method and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium like that of claims 25 and 35, respectively, which comprise analyzing a set of messages and identifying metadata related to the messages, and whereby the metadata is displayed within a message card corresponding to each message. Rydenhag, Mandel 1 and Mandel 2, however, do teach: (i) accessing, over a network, a whitelist comprising domain information of known message senders; (ii) comparing said metadata to domain information on the whitelist; and (iii) modifying a message card when the metadata matches at least a portion of the domain information, as is required by claims 26 and 36.
Wieneke nevertheless teaches accessing, over a network, a whitelist comprising domain information of known message senders, and comparing metadata (i.e. sender domain information) of received email messages to domain information on the whitelist (see e.g. paragraphs 0003, 0025 and 0031).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Rydenhag, Mandel 1, Mandel 2 and Wieneke before him at the time the invention was made, to modify the method and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium taught by Rydenhag, Mandel 1 and Mandel 2 so as to access, over a network, a whitelist comprising domain information of known message senders and compare the metadata of the received email messages to domain information on the whitelist, as is taught by Wieneke. It would have been advantageous to one of ordinary skill to utilize such a combination because it can help mitigate problems caused by spam, as is taught by Wieneke (see e.g. paragraphs 0002-0003).
Tokuda similarly teaches accessing a whitelist and comparing metadata of received email messages to information on the whitelist (see e.g. column 12, lines 16-27; and column 13, line 59 – column 14, line 13). Further, regarding the claimed invention, Tokuda further teaches modifying an email message when the metadata matches at least a portion of the information (see e.g. column 13, line 59 – column 14, line 13).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Rydenhag, Mandel 1, Mandel 2, Wieneke and Tokuda before him at the time the invention was made, to modify the method and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium taught by Rydenhag, Mandel 1, Mandel 2 and Wieneke so as to modify email messages (i.e. message cards) when their metadata matches at least a portion of the information (i.e. domain information) on the whitelist, as is taught by Tokuda. It would have been advantageous to one of ordinary skill to utilize such a combination because it would call attention to email messages from people on the recipient’s whitelist, as is taught by Tokuda (see e.g. column 13, line 59 – column 14, line 13). Accordingly, Rydenhag, Mandel 1, Mandel 2, Wieneke and Tokuda are considered to teach, to one of ordinary skill in the art, a method like that of claim 26 and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium like that of claim 36.
Claims 28-30, 38 and 39 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Rydenhag, Mandel 1 and Mandel 2, which is described above, and also over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0024779 to Bechtel et al. (“Bechtel”).
Regarding claims 28 and 38, the above-described combination of Rydenhag, Mandel 1 and Mandel 2 teaches a method like that of claim 24 and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium like that of claim 34, as is described above, which entail analyzing a set of messages and generating a message card for each message. Rydenhag, Mandel 1 and Mandel 2, however, do not explicitly teach detecting settings indicating instructions for generating a message card for the message, the settings dictating types of information that are permitted to be included in the message card for the message, as is required by claims 28 and 38.
Bechtel generally describes a notification system for providing a notification of received email messages (see e.g. paragraphs 0012-0013). Like the message cards taught by Rydenhag, Bechtel discloses that each notification (i.e. message indicator) represents an email message and can comprise a portion of the email message (see e.g. paragraph 0027). Bechtel further teaches detecting settings indicating instructions for generating the notification for each message, the settings dictating types of information that are to be permitted to be included in the notification for the message (see e.g. paragraphs 0026-0027 and 0037-0038).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Rydenhag, Mandel 1, Mandel 2 and Bechtel before him at the time the invention was made, to modify the method and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium taught by Rydenhag, Mandel 1 and Mandel 2 so as to detect settings indicating instructions for generating the message card for the message, the settings dictating types of information that are permitted to be included in the message card for the message, as is analogously done with the notifications taught by Bechtel. It would have been advantageous to one of ordinary skill to utilize such a combination because it would enable the user to modify the display of each message card to better suit his or her preferences, as is evident from Bechtel (see e.g. paragraphs 0026-0027 and 0037-0038). Accordingly, Rydenhag, Mandel 1, Mandel 2 and Bechtel are considered to teach, to one of ordinary skill in the art, a method like that of claim 28 and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium like that of claim 38.
As per claim 29, it would have been obvious, as is described above, to modify the method taught by Rydenhag, Mandel 1 and Mandel 2 so as to detect settings indicating instructions for generating the message card for each message, the settings dictating types of information that are permitted to be included in the message card for the message, as is analogously done with the notifications taught by Bechtel. Bechtel particularly teaches that the settings comprise instructions set by a recipient of a notification prior to its transmission to the user (see e.g. paragraphs 0037-0038). Accordingly, the above-described combination of Rydenhag, Mandel 1, Mandel 2 and Bechtel is further considered to teach a method like that of claim 29.
As per claim 30, it would have been obvious, as is described above, to modify the method taught by Rydenhag, Mandel 1 and Mandel 2 so as to detect settings indicating instructions for generating the message card for each message, the settings dictating types of information that are permitted to be included in the message card for the message, as is analogously done with the notifications taught by Bechtel. Bechtel particularly discloses that the settings control at least one of a format of the notification and a content of the notification (see e.g. paragraphs 0027 and 0037-0038). Accordingly, the above-described combination of Rydenhag, Mandel 1, Mandel 2 and Bechtel is further considered to teach a method like that of claim 30.
As per claim 39, it would have been obvious, as is described above, to modify the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium taught by Rydenhag, Mandel 1 and Mandel 2 so as to detect settings indicating instructions for generating the message card for each message, the settings dictating types of information that are permitted to be included in the message card for the message, as is analogously done with the notifications taught by Bechtel. Bechtel particularly teaches that the settings comprise instructions set by a recipient of a notification prior to its transmission to the user (see e.g. paragraphs 0037-0038). Bechtel further discloses that the settings control at least one of a format of the notification and a content of the notification (see e.g. paragraphs 0027 and 0037-0038). Accordingly, the above-described combination of Rydenhag, Mandel 1, Mandel 2 and Bechtel is further considered to teach a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium like that of claim 39.
Claims 31 and 40 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Rydenhag, Mandel 1 and Mandel 2, which is described above, and also over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0124939 to Osborne et al. (“Osborne”).
As described above, Rydenhag, Mandel 1 and Mandel 2 teach a method like that of claim 24 and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium like that of claim 34, which entail analyzing a set of messages and generating a message card for each message. Rydenhag, Mandel 1 and Mandel 2, however, do not explicitly teach that a format of the message cards is based on display characteristics of the display device, as is required by claims 31 and 40.
Osborne nevertheless generally teaches formatting messages based on display characteristics of a display device upon which the messages are displayed (see e.g. paragraphs 0015 and 0026).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Rydenhag, Mandel 1, Mandel 2 and Osborne before him at the time the invention was made, to modify the method and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium taught by Rydenhag, Mandel 1 and Mandel 2 such that the format of the messages (i.e. message cards) are based on display characteristics of the display device, as is taught by Osborne. It would have been advantageous to one of ordinary skill to utilize such a combination because it would enable the messages to be presented across a variety of display devices, as is evident from Osborne (see e.g. paragraphs 0015 and 0026). Accordingly, Rydenhag, Mandel 1, Mandel 2 and Osborne are considered to teach, to one of ordinary skill in the art, a method like that of claim 31 and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium like that of claim 40.
Claims 33 and 42 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Rydenhag, Mandel 1 and Mandel 2, which is described above, and also over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0011258 to Khoo (“Khoo”).
As described above, Rydenhag, Mandel 1 and Mandel 2 teach a method like that of claim 32 and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium like that of claim 41, which entail analyzing a set of messages and generating a message card for each message. Rydenhag further discloses that each message can comprise one or more attachments (see e.g. paragraphs 0013-0014, 0112-0113 and 0125, and FIG. 5.). Rydenhag, Mandel 1 and Mandel 2, however, do not explicitly disclose that, when a message comprises a plurality of attachments, navigation icons are generated and displayed within the message enabling navigation between the different attachments, as is required by claims 33 and 42.
Similar to each of the message cards described by Rydenhag, Khoo describes a dynamic preview window for viewing a summary of an email message without having to open the email message (see e.g. paragraphs 0002 and 0007). Khoo particularly discloses that when an email message comprises a plurality of attachments, the preview window can display navigation icons (links) to enable navigation between the different attachments (see e.g. paragraphs 0051-0052 and FIG. 7b).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Rydenhag, Mandel 1, Mandel 2 and Khoo before him at the time the invention was made, to modify the method and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium taught by Rydenhag, Mandel 1 and Mandel 2 so as to generate and display navigation icons within the message when the message comprises a plurality of attachments, the navigation icons enabling navigation between the different attachments, as is taught by Khoo. It would have been advantageous to one of ordinary skill to utilize such a combination because it would enable the attachments to be individually displayed and thus conserve display space, as is evident from Khoo (see e.g. paragraphs 0051-0052 and FIG. 7b). Accordingly, Rydenhag, Mandel 1, Mandel 2 and Khoo are considered to teach, to one of ordinary skill in the art, a method like that of claim 33 and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium like that of claim 42.
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 §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) 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 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 24-27, 32, 34-37, 41, 43, 44, 46 and 47 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 8 and 12 of U.S. Patent No. 10,554,608 (the “Parent”), in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0245174 to Rydenhag et al. (“Rydenhag”), and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0072363 to Mandel et al. (“Mandel 1”).
Like in claim 24 of the instant application, claim 8 of the Parent is directed to a method comprising:
accessing, by a computing device, a set of email messages from an email mailbox of a user (i.e. claim 8 of the Parent recites, “accessing, by a computing device, a plurality of email messages in an email mailbox”);
analyzing, via the computing device, said set of email messages, and based on said analysis, identifying message content of each email message (i.e. claim 8 of the Parent recites, “configuring, by the computing device, the email messages in the email mailbox into a graphical display format, the display format comprising email message cards, each email message card representing a respective email message in the mailbox and comprising a portion of email contents of the email message,” which is considered to necessitate analyzing the email messages to identify message content of each email message so that each email message card can comprise the portion of email contents of a respective email message like required.);
generating, by the computing device, a message card for each email message in said set of email messages, each message card comprising a portion of identified message content of a respective email message in said set of email messages, each message card further comprising an action toolbar that is configured to be persistently displayed, without regard to a selection state of the message card, within the message card when the message card is displayed and enables interaction with a remaining portion of the identified message content of the respective email message without having to open the email message or message card (i.e., as noted above, claim 8 of the Parent recites, “configuring, by the computing device, the email messages in the email mailbox into a graphical display format, the display format comprising email message cards, each email message card representing a respective email message in the mailbox and comprising a portion of email contents of the email message.” Claim 8 of the parent further recites, “…causing each configured message card to be modified to persistently display an action toolbar within each configured message card, each action toolbar displayed within a respective configured message card comprising functionality that enables interaction with content of an associated email message without opening the respective email message and without opening the respective configured message card, said enabled interaction occurring through interaction with the displayed action toolbar.”);
configuring, via the computing device, a graphical display format of said message cards, said format providing an initial display of how each message card is displayed respective to other message cards (i.e. claim 8 of the Parent recites, “configuring, by the computing device, the email messages in the email mailbox into a graphical display format, the display format comprising email message cards,” which would necessitate an initial display of how each message card is displayed respective to other message cards.); and
communicating, by the computing device, the graphical display format to a display device, said communication causing an initial display of each message card comprising the associated action toolbar and said portion of identified message content (i.e. claim 8 of the Parent recites, “communicating, by the computing device, the graphical display format to a display device, said communication causing each configured message card to be modified to persistently display an action toolbar….”).
Accordingly, claim 8 of the Parent teaches a method similar that of claim 24 of the instant application, but does not explicitly recite that the action toolbar comprises indicators of a plurality of actions, or that the plurality of actions comprise card-level and message-level actions, at least one message-level action enabling the interaction with the remaining portion of the identified message content, as is required by claim 24. Claim 8 of the Parent also does not recite that the action toolbar comprises at least one card-level action comprising a navigation action enabling navigation between the displayed message cards, the enabled message card navigation between the displayed message cards being distinguished from navigation between email messages of the set of email messages used to generate the message cards, as is further required by claim 24 of the instant application.
Rydenhag generally describes a computing device that can then generate a display of message data items in a two-dimensional scheme, wherein each message data item is displayed to comprise at least a portion of the message body (see e.g. paragraphs 0011, 0014, 0015, and 0110-0112). Rydenhag particularly demonstrates that each message data item is displayed via a message card in the two-dimensional scheme, wherein the message card comprises details related to the message such as the sender, date/time, and subject, in addition to at least a portion of the message body and any attachments (see e.g. paragraphs 0113 and 0114, and FIG. 5). Rydenhag further teaches that each message card can display, in response to user selection of the message card, an action toolbar that comprises indicators (e.g. icons) of a plurality of actions (see e.g. paragraphs 0020 and 0119, and FIG. 6). These actions can particularly include a “delete” action that understandably results in deletion of the message and corresponding message card, and a “dismiss” action that understandably results in removal of the corresponding message card (see e.g. paragraphs 0020 and 0119). The “delete” and/or “dismiss” actions are considered “card-level actions” like claimed. In addition, Rydenhag discloses that the actions indicated in the action toolbar can also include “reply,” “forward” and “save” actions, inter alia (see e.g. paragraphs 0019-0020 and 0119). Such actions are considered “message-level actions” like claimed. The save action understandably enables interaction with, e.g. saving, a remaining portion of the message content of the respective email message without having to open the email message or message card (see e.g. paragraphs 0019-0020, 0025, 0114 and 0119, and FIG. 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of the Parent and Rydenhag before him at the time the invention was made, to modify the method taught by the Parent such that the action toolbar comprises indicators of a plurality of actions, wherein the plurality of actions comprise card-level and message-level actions, and at least one message-level action enables the interaction with the remaining portion of the identified message content of the respective email message without having to open the email message or message card like taught by Rydenhag. It would have been advantageous to one of ordinary skill to utilize such a combination because it would enable the user to apply multiple commands with respect to a message, as is taught by Rydenhag (see e.g. paragraphs 0020 and 0119, and FIG. 6).
Mandel 1 generally describes a method and process for displaying and sorting messages (e.g. email messages) in a communication system (see e.g. paragraph 0010). Regarding the claimed invention, Mandel 1 particularly teaches displaying an action toolbar with each message, wherein the action toolbar comprises indicators (i.e. buttons) of a plurality of actions including a navigation action that enables navigation between displayed messages (see e.g. paragraphs 0010, 0029, 0034 and 0038-0042, and FIGS. 3 and 6). The indicator for the navigation action, for example, enables navigation between different messages in a thread (see e.g. paragraph 0042 and FIG. 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of the Parent, Rydenhag and Mandel 1 before him at the time the invention was made, to modify the method taught by the Parent and Rydenhag such that the action toolbar comprises a navigation action like taught by Mandel 1, which enables navigation between the displayed message items (i.e. message cards). Such a navigation action is considered a type of “card-level action” like claimed, and is distinguished from navigation between the email messages that are used to generate the message cards (i.e. navigating between email message cards is different from the more general, navigation through email messages per se). It would have been advantageous to one of ordinary skill to utilize such a navigation action, because it would allow the user to more easily move through related messages, threads and folders, as is taught by Mandel 1 (see e.g. paragraphs 0009-0010 and 0038-0042). Accordingly, the Parent, Rydenhag and Mandel 1 are considered to teach, to one of ordinary skill in the art, a method like that of claim 24 of the instant application.
Regarding claim 25 of the instant application, the Parent does not explicitly recite analyzing the set of messages, and based on said analysis, identifying metadata related to the messages, and causing the metadata to be displayed within each corresponding message’s message card, as is required by claim 25.
Rydenhag nevertheless further teaches analyzing a set of messages, and based on the analysis, identifying metadata (e.g. a sender, date/time, and/or subject) related to the messages, and causing the metadata to be displayed within a message card corresponding to each message (see e.g. paragraphs 0011-0014, 0109, 0112-0113, and FIG. 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of the Parent, Rydenhag and Mandel 1 before him at the time the invention was made, to further modify the method taught by the Parent, Rydenhag and Mandel 1 so as to analyze the set of messages, and based on said analysis, identify metadata related to the messages, and cause the metadata to be displayed within each corresponding message’s message card, as is taught by Rydenhag. It would have been advantageous to one of ordinary skill to utilize such a combination because it would provide relevant information within each message card, as is evident from Rydenhag (see e.g. paragraphs 0011-0014, 0109, 0112-0113, and FIG. 5). Accordingly, the Parent, Rydenhag and Mandel 1 are further considered to teach, to one of ordinary skill in the art, a method like that of claim 25 of the instant application.
As per claim 26 of the instant application, the Parent further teaches: accessing, over a network, a whitelist comprising domain information of known message senders; comparing metadata to domain information on said whitelist; and modifying a message card when said metadata matches at least a portion of said domain information (i.e. claim 8 of the Parent recites, “detecting, by the computing device, a domain of an email message of the plurality and associating a domain identifier icon to an email message card associated with the email message, the associating of the domain identifier icon occurring upon determining that the domain is on a whitelist of domains, said association causing the domain identifier icon to be displayed within the email message card”). Accordingly, the above-described combination of the Parent, Rydenhag and Mandel 1 further teaches a method like that of claim 26 of the instant application.
As per claim 27, it would have been obvious, as is described above, to further modify the method taught by the Parent, Rydenhag and Mandel 1 so as to analyze the set of messages, and based on said analysis, identify metadata related to the messages, and cause the metadata to be displayed within each corresponding message’s message card, as is taught by Rydenhag. Rydenhag particularly discloses that the metadata comprises information selected from the group consisting of: domain identifier, date, sender identifier, and importance identifier (see e.g. paragraphs 0013 and 0109: Rydenhag discloses that each message data item can comprise a subject, sender/recipient, attachment, message body, header and/or importance.). Accordingly, the above-described combination of the Parent, Rydenhag and Mandel 1 further teaches a method like that of claim 27 of the instant application.
Regarding claim 32 of the instant application, the Parent does not explicitly recite determining, based on said analysis, that a message comprises an attachment, and generating an image that is to be displayed within a message card for the message, as is required by claim 32.
As noted, Rydenhag generally describes a method and device for obtaining message data items and displaying them in a two-dimensional scheme (see e.g. paragraphs 0011 and 0026). Rydenhag particularly teaches configuring a graphical display format of message cards for the message data items, the format providing an initial display of how each message card is displayed respective to other message cards (see e.g. paragraphs 0113 and 0114, and FIG. 5). Rydenhag further teaches determining, based upon an analysis of each message, that a message comprises an attachment, and generating an image that is to be displayed within a message card for said message (see e.g. paragraphs 0013, 0112-0113 and 0125, and FIG. 5: Rydenhag discloses that any attachments included with a message data item are each represented via a thumbnail image. In response to determining that a message data item comprises an attachment, the computing device thus necessarily generates an image, i.e. the thumbnail image, which is to be displayed within a message card for the message data item.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of the Parent, Rydenhag and Mandel 1 before him at the time the invention was made, to further modify the method taught by the Parent, Rydenhag and Mandel 1 so as to determine, based on said analysis, that a message comprises an attachment, and generate an image that is to be displayed within a message card for the message, as is taught by Rydenhag. It would have been advantageous to one of ordinary skill to utilize such a combination because it would provide a depiction of the attachment that is readily viewable by the user, as is evident from Rydenhag (see e.g. paragraphs 0013, 0112-0113 and 0125, and FIG. 5). Accordingly, the Parent, Rydenhag and Mandel 1 are further considered to teach, to one of ordinary skill in the art, a method like that of claim 32 of the instant application.
Like in claim 34 of the instant application, claim 12 of the Parent is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium tangibly encoded with computer-executable instructions, that when executed by a computing device, perform a method comprising:
accessing, by a computing device, a set of email messages from an email mailbox of the user (i.e. claim 12 of the Parent recites, “accessing, by the computer processor, a plurality of email messages in an email mailbox”);
analyzing, via the computing device, said set of email messages, and based on said analysis, identifying message content of each email message (i.e. claim 12 of the Parent recites, “configuring, by the computer processor, the email messages in the email mailbox into a graphical display format, the display format comprising email message cards, each email message card representing a respective email message in the mailbox and comprising a portion of email contents of the email message,” which is considered to necessitate analyzing the email messages to identify message content of each email message so that each email message card can comprise the portion of email contents of a respective email message like required.);
generating, by the computing device, a message card for each email message in said set of email messages, each message card comprising a portion of identified message content of a respective email message in said set of email messages, each message card further comprising an action toolbar that is configured to be persistently displayed, without regard to a selection state of the message card, within the message card when the message card is displayed and enables interaction with a remaining portion of the identified message content of the respective email message without having to open the email message or message card (i.e., as noted above, claim 12 of the Parent recites, “configuring, by the computer processor, the email messages in the email mailbox into a graphical display format, the display format comprising email message cards, each email message card representing a respective email message in the mailbox and comprising a portion of email contents of the email message.” Claim 12 of the parent further recites, “…causing each configured message card to be modified to persistently display an action toolbar within each configured message card, each action toolbar displayed within a respective configured message card comprising functionality that enables interaction with content of an associated email message without opening the respective email message and without opening the respective configured message card, said enabled interaction occurring through interaction with the displayed action toolbar.”);
configuring, via the computing device, a graphical display format of said message cards, said format providing an initial display of how each message card is displayed respective to other message cards (i.e. claim 12 of the Parent recites, “configuring, by the computer processor, the email messages in the email mailbox into a graphical display format, the display format comprising email message cards,” which would necessitate an initial display of how each message card is displayed respective to other message cards.); and
communicating, by the computing device, the graphical display format to a display device, said communication causing an initial display of each message card comprising the associated action toolbar and said portion of identified message content until said interaction occurs via said action toolbar (i.e. claim 12 of the Parent recites, “communicating, by the computer processor, the graphical display format to a display device, said communication causing each configured message card to be modified to persistently display an action toolbar….”).
Accordingly, claim 12 of the Parent teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium similar to that of claim 34 of the instant application, but does not explicitly recite that the action toolbar comprises indicators of a plurality of actions, or that the plurality of actions comprise card-level and message-level actions, at least one message-level action enabling the interaction with the remaining portion of the identified message content, like required by claim 34. Claim 12 of the Parent also does not recite that the action toolbar comprises at least one card-level action comprising a navigation action enabling navigation between the displayed message cards, the enabled message card navigation between the displayed message cards being distinguished from navigation between email messages of the set of email messages used to generate the message cards, as is further required by claim 34 of the instant application.
Rydenhag generally describes a computing device that can then generate a display of message data items in a two-dimensional scheme, wherein each message data item is displayed to comprise at least a portion of the message body (see e.g. paragraphs 0011, 0014, 0015, and 0110-0112). Rydenhag particularly demonstrates that each message data item is displayed via a message card in the two-dimensional scheme, wherein the message card comprises details related to the message such as the sender, date/time, and subject, in addition to at least a portion of the message body and any attachments (see e.g. paragraphs 0113 and 0114, and FIG. 5). Rydenhag further teaches that each message card can display, in response to user selection of the message card, an action toolbar that comprises indicators (e.g. icons) of a plurality of actions (see e.g. paragraphs 0020 and 0119, and FIG. 6). These actions can particularly include a “delete” action that understandably results in deletion of the message and corresponding message card, and a “dismiss” action that understandably results in removal of the corresponding message card (see e.g. paragraphs 0020 and 0119). The “delete” and/or “dismiss” actions are considered “card-level actions” like claimed. In addition, Rydenhag discloses that the actions indicated in the action toolbar can also include “reply,” “forward” and “save” actions, inter alia (see e.g. paragraphs 0019-0020 and 0119). Such actions are considered “message-level actions” like claimed. The save action understandably enables interaction with, e.g. saving, a remaining portion of the message content of the respective email message without having to open the email message or message card (see e.g. paragraphs 0019-0020, 0025, 0114 and 0119, and FIG. 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of the Parent and Rydenhag before him at the time the invention was made, to modify the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium taught by the Parent such that the action toolbar comprises indicators of a plurality of actions, wherein the plurality of actions comprise card-level and message-level actions, and at least one message-level action enables the interaction with the remaining portion of the identified message content of the respective email message without having to open the email message or message card like taught by Rydenhag. It would have been advantageous to one of ordinary skill to utilize such a combination because it would enable the user to apply multiple commands with respect to a message, as is taught by Rydenhag.
Mandel 1 generally describes a method and process for displaying and sorting messages (e.g. email messages) in a communication system (see e.g. paragraph 0010). Regarding the claimed invention, Mandel 1 particularly teaches displaying an action toolbar with each message, wherein the action toolbar comprises indicators (i.e. buttons) of a plurality of actions including a navigation action that enables navigation between displayed messages (see e.g. paragraphs 0010, 0029, 0034 and 0038-0042, and FIGS. 3 and 6). The indicator for the navigation action, for example, enables navigation between different messages in a thread (see e.g. paragraph 0042 and FIG. 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of the Parent, Rydenhag and Mandel 1 before him at the time the invention was made, to modify the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium taught by the Parent and Rydenhag such that the action toolbar comprises a navigation action like taught by Mandel 1, which enables navigation between the displayed message items (i.e. message cards). Such a navigation action is considered a type of “card-level action” like claimed, and is distinguished from navigation between the email messages that are used to generate the message cards (i.e. navigating between email message cards is different from the more general, navigation through email messages per se). It would have been advantageous to one of ordinary skill to utilize such a navigation action, because it would allow the user to more easily move through related messages, threads and folders, as is taught by Mandel 1 (see e.g. paragraphs 0009-0010 and 0038-0042). Accordingly, the Parent, Rydenhag and Mandel 1 are considered to teach, to one of ordinary skill in the art, a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium like that of claim 34 of the instant application.
Regarding claim 35 of the instant application, the Parent does not explicitly recite analyzing the set of messages, and based on said analysis, identifying metadata related to the messages, and causing the metadata to be displayed within each corresponding message’s message card, as is required by claim 35.
Rydenhag nevertheless further teaches analyzing a set of messages, and based on the analysis, identifying metadata (e.g. a sender, date/time, and/or subject) related to the messages, and causing the metadata to be displayed within a message card corresponding to each message (see e.g. paragraphs 0011-0014, 0109, 0112-0113, and FIG. 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of the Parent, Rydenhag and Mandel 1 before him at the time the invention was made, to further modify the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium taught by the Parent, Rydenhag and Mandel 1 so as to analyze the set of messages, and based on said analysis, identify metadata related to the messages, and cause the metadata to be displayed within each corresponding message’s message card, as is taught by Rydenhag. It would have been advantageous to one of ordinary skill to utilize such a combination because it would provide relevant information within each message card, as is evident from Rydenhag (see e.g. paragraphs 0011-0014, 0109, 0112-0113, and FIG. 5). Accordingly, the Parent, Rydenhag and Mandel 1 are further considered to teach, to one of ordinary skill in the art, a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium like that of claim 35 of the instant application.
As per claim 36 of the instant application, the Parent further teaches: accessing, over a network, a whitelist comprising domain information of known message senders; comparing metadata to domain information on said whitelist; and modifying a message card when said metadata matches at least a portion of said domain information (i.e. claim 8 of the Parent recites, “detecting, by the computing device, a domain of an email message of the plurality and associating a domain identifier icon to an email message card associated with the email message, the associating of the domain identifier icon occurring upon determining that the domain is on a whitelist of domains, said association causing the domain identifier icon to be displayed within the email message card”). Accordingly, the above-described combination of the Parent, Rydenhag and Mandel 1 further teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium like that of claim 36 of the instant application.
As per claim 37 of the instant application, it would have been obvious, as is described above, to further modify the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium taught by the Parent, Rydenhag and Mandel 1 so as to analyze the set of messages, and based on said analysis, identify metadata related to the messages, and cause the metadata to be displayed within each corresponding message’s message card, as is taught by Rydenhag. Rydenhag particularly discloses that the metadata comprises information selected from the group consisting of: domain identifier, date, sender identifier, and importance identifier (see e.g. paragraphs 0013 and 0109: Rydenhag discloses that each message data item can comprise a subject, sender/recipient, attachment, message body, header and/or importance.). Accordingly, the above-described combination of the Parent, Rydenhag and Mandel 1 further teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium like that of claim 37 of the instant application.
Regarding claim 41 of the instant application, the Parent does not explicitly recite determining, based on said analysis, that a message comprises an attachment, and generating an image that is to be displayed within a message card for the message, as is required by claim 41.
Like noted above, Rydenhag generally describes a method and device for obtaining message data items and displaying them in a two-dimensional scheme (see e.g. paragraphs 0011 and 0026). Rydenhag particularly teaches configuring a graphical display format of message cards for the message data items, the format providing an initial display of how each message card is displayed respective to other message cards (see e.g. paragraphs 0113 and 0114, and FIG. 5). Rydenhag further teaches determining, based upon an analysis of each message, that a message comprises an attachment, and generating an image that is to be displayed within a message card for said message (see e.g. paragraphs 0013, 0112-0113 and 0125, and FIG. 5: Rydenhag discloses that any attachments included with a message data item are each represented via a thumbnail image. In response to determining that a message data item comprises an attachment, the computing device thus necessarily generates an image, i.e. the thumbnail image, which is to be displayed within a message card for the message data item.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of the Parent, Rydenhag and Mandel 1 before him at the time the invention was made, to further modify the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium taught by the Parent, Rydenhag and Mandel 1 so as to determine, based on said analysis, that a message comprises an attachment, and generate an image that is to be displayed within a message card for the message, as is taught by Rydenhag. It would have been advantageous to one of ordinary skill to utilize such a combination because it would provide a depiction of the attachment that is readily viewable by the user, as is evident from Rydenhag (see e.g. paragraphs 0013, 0112-0113 and 0125, and FIG. 5). Accordingly, the Parent, Rydenhag and Mandel 1 are further considered to teach, to one of ordinary skill in the art, a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium like that of claim 41 of the instant application.
Like in claim 43 of the instant application, claim 1 of the Parent is directed to computing device comprising a processor and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium for tangibly storing thereon program logic for execution by the processor, the program logic comprising:
logic executed by the processor for accessing, by the computing device, a set of email messages from an email mailbox of a user (i.e. claim 1 of the Parent recites, “email mailbox logic for accessing a plurality of email messages in an email mailbox”);
logic executed by the processor for analyzing, via the computing device, said set of email messages, and based on said analysis, identifying message content of each email message (i.e. claim 1 of the Parent recites, “email mailbox configuring logic executed by the processor for configuring the email messages in the email mailbox into a graphical display format, the display format comprising email message cards, each email message card representing a respective email message in the mailbox and comprising a portion of email contents of the email message,” which is considered to necessitate analyzing the email messages to identify message content of each email message so that each email message card can comprise the portion of email contents of a respective email message like required.);
logic executed by the processor for generating, by the computing device, a message card for each email message in said set of email messages, each message card comprising a portion of identified message content of a respective email message in said set of email messages, each message card further comprising an action toolbar that is configured to be persistently displayed, without regard to a selection state of the message card, within the message card when the message card is displayed and enables interaction with a remaining portion of the identified message content of the respective email message without having to open the email message or message card (i.e., as noted above, claim 1 of the Parent recites, “email mailbox configuring logic executed by the processor for configuring the email messages in the email mailbox into a graphical display format, the display format comprising email message cards, each email message card representing a respective email message in the mailbox and comprising a portion of email contents of the email message.” Claim 1 of the parent further recites, “…causing each configured message card to be modified to persistently display an action toolbar within each configured message card, each action toolbar displayed within a respective configured message card comprising functionality that enables interaction with content of an associated email message without opening the respective email message and without opening the respective configured message card, said enabled interaction occurring through interaction with the displayed action toolbar.”);
logic executed by the processor for configuring, via the computing device, a graphical display format of said message cards, said format providing an initial display of how each message card is displayed respective to other message cards (i.e. claim 1 of the Parent recites, “email mailbox configuring logic executed by the processor for configuring the email messages in the email mailbox into a graphical display format, the display format comprising email message cards…,” which would necessitate an initial display of how each message card is displayed respective to other message cards.); and
logic executed by the processor for communicating, by the computing device, the graphical display format to a display device, said communication causing an initial display of each message card comprising the associated action toolbar and said portion of identified message content (i.e. claim 1 of the Parent recites, “communication logic executed by the processor for communicating the graphical display format to a display device, said communication causing each configured message card to be modified to persistently display an action toolbar….”).
Accordingly, claim 1 of the Parent teaches a computing device similar to that of claim 43 of the instant application, but does not explicitly recite that the action toolbar comprises indicators of a plurality of actions, or that the plurality of actions comprise card-level and message-level actions, at least one message-level action enabling the interaction with the remaining portion of the identified message content, as is required by claim 43 of the instant application. Claim 1 of the Parent also does not recite that the action toolbar comprises at least one card-level action comprising a navigation action enabling navigation between the displayed message cards, the enabled message card navigation between the displayed message cards being distinguished from navigation between email messages of the set of email messages used to generate the message cards, as is further required by claim 43 of the instant application.
Rydenhag generally describes a computing device that can then generate a display of message data items in a two-dimensional scheme, wherein each message data item is displayed to comprise at least a portion of the message body (see e.g. paragraphs 0011, 0014, 0015, and 0110-0112). Rydenhag particularly demonstrates that each message data item is displayed via a message card in the two-dimensional scheme, wherein the message card comprises details related to the message such as the sender, date/time, and subject, in addition to at least a portion of the message body and any attachments (see e.g. paragraphs 0113 and 0114, and FIG. 5). Rydenhag further teaches that each message card can display, in response to user selection of the message card, an action toolbar that comprises indicators (e.g. icons) of a plurality of actions (see e.g. paragraphs 0020 and 0119, and FIG. 6). These actions can particularly include a “delete” action that understandably results in deletion of the message and corresponding message card, and a “dismiss” action that understandably results in removal of the corresponding message card (see e.g. paragraphs 0020 and 0119). The “delete” and/or “dismiss” actions are considered “card-level actions” like claimed. In addition, Rydenhag discloses that the actions indicated in the action toolbar can also include “reply,” “forward” and “save” actions, inter alia (see e.g. paragraphs 0019-0020 and 0119). Such actions are considered “message-level actions” like claimed. The save action understandably enables interaction with, e.g. saving, a remaining portion of the message content of the respective email message without having to open the email message or message card (see e.g. paragraphs 0019-0020, 0025, 0114 and 0119, and FIG. 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of the Parent and Rydenhag before him at the time the invention was made, to modify the computing device taught by the Parent such that the action toolbar comprises indicators of a plurality of actions, wherein the plurality of actions comprise card-level and message-level actions, and at least one message-level action enables the interaction with the remaining portion of the identified message content of the respective email message without having to open the email message or message card like taught by Rydenhag. It would have been advantageous to one of ordinary skill to utilize such a combination because it would enable the user to apply multiple commands with respect to a message, as is taught by Rydenhag (see e.g. paragraphs 0020 and 0119, and FIG. 6).
Mandel 1 generally describes a method and process for displaying and sorting messages (e.g. email messages) in a communication system (see e.g. paragraph 0010). Regarding the claimed invention, Mandel 1 particularly teaches displaying an action toolbar with each message, wherein the action toolbar comprises indicators (i.e. buttons) of a plurality of actions including a navigation action that enables navigation between displayed messages (see e.g. paragraphs 0010, 0029, 0034 and 0038-0042, and FIGS. 3 and 6). The indicator for the navigation action, for example, enables navigation between different messages in a thread (see e.g. paragraph 0042 and FIG. 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of the Parent, Rydenhag and Mandel 1 before him at the time the invention was made, to modify the computing device taught by the Parent and Rydenhag such that the action toolbar comprises a navigation action like taught by Mandel 1, which enables navigation between the displayed message items (i.e. message cards). Such a navigation action is considered a type of “card-level action” like claimed, and is distinguished from navigation between the email messages that are used to generate the message cards (i.e. navigating between email message cards is different from the more general, navigation through email messages per se). It would have been advantageous to one of ordinary skill to utilize such a navigation action, because it would allow the user to more easily move through related messages, threads and folders, as is taught by Mandel 1 (see e.g. paragraphs 0009-0010 and 0038-0042). Accordingly, the Parent, Rydenhag and Mandel 1 are considered to teach, to one of ordinary skill in the art, a computing device like that of claim 43 of the instant application.
As per claim 44, Rydenhag further teaches that the card-level actions can include a delete action that understandably enables deletion of a corresponding message card (see e.g. paragraphs 0020 and 0119). Accordingly, the above-described combination of the Parent, Rydenhag and Mandel 1 further teaches a method like that of claim 44.
As per claim 46, Rydenhag teaches that the card-level actions can include a delete action that understandably enables deletion of a corresponding message card and corresponding email message (see e.g. paragraphs 0020 and 0119). Accordingly, the above-described combination of the Parent, Rydenhag and Mandel 1 is further considered to teach a method like that of claim 46.
Regarding claim 47, the Parent does not explicitly teach configuring the display format so that two or more of the message cards are grouped within a portion of the graphical display format in accordance with a user-specified grouping, as is claimed.
Mandel 1 nevertheless teaches configuring a graphical display format so that two or more messages (e.g. email messages) are grouped within a portion of the graphical display format (e.g. within a folder) in accordance with a user-specified grouping (see e.g. paragraphs 0020-0021 and 0028).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of the Parent, Rydenhag and Mandel 1 before him at the time the invention was made, to further modify the method taught by the Parent, Rydenhag and Mandel 1 such that two or more messages (i.e. message cards) can be grouped within a portion of the graphical display format in accordance with a user-specified grouping, as is taught by Mandel 1. It would have been advantageous to one of ordinary skill to utilize such a combination because it would enable the user to customize the display according to his or her preferences, as is evident from Mandel 1 (see e.g. paragraphs 0020-0021 and 0028). Accordingly, the Parent, Rydenhag and Mandel 1 are further considered to teach, to one of ordinary skill in the art, a method like that of claim 47.
Claims 28-30, 38 and 39 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the above-described combination of the Parent, Rydenhag and Mandel 1, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0024779 to Bechtel et al. (“Bechtel”).
Regarding claims 28 and 38 of the instant application, the Parent, Rydenhag and Mandel 1 teach a method like that of claim 24 and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium like that of claim 34, as is described above, which entail analyzing a set of messages and generating a message card for each message. The Parent, Rydenhag and Mandel 1, however, do not explicitly teach detecting settings indicating instructions for generating a message card for the message, the settings dictating types of information that are permitted to be included in the message card for the message, as is required by claims 28 and 38.
Bechtel generally describes a notification system for providing a notification of received email messages (see e.g. paragraphs 0012-0013). Like the message cards taught by Rydenhag, Bechtel discloses that each notification (i.e. message indicator) represents an email message and can comprise a portion of the email message (see e.g. paragraph 0027). Bechtel further teaches detecting settings indicating instructions for generating the notification for each message, the settings dictating types of information that are to be permitted to be included in the notification for the message (see e.g. paragraphs 0026-0027 and 0037-0038).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of the Parent, Rydenhag, Mandel 1 and Bechtel before him at the time the invention was made, to modify the method and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium taught by the Parent, Rydenhag and Mandel 1 so as to detect settings indicating instructions for generating the message card for the message, the settings dictating types of information that are permitted to be included in the message card for the message, as is analogously done with the notifications taught by Bechtel. It would have been advantageous to one of ordinary skill to utilize such a combination because it would enable the user to modify the display of each message card to better suit his or her preferences, as is evident from Bechtel (see e.g. paragraphs 0026-0027 and 0037-0038). Accordingly, the Parent, Rydenhag, Mandel 1 and Bechtel are considered to teach, to one of ordinary skill in the art, a method like that of claim 28 and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium like that of claim 38 of the instant application.
As per claim 29 of the instant application, it would have been obvious, as is described above, to modify the method taught by the Parent, Rydenhag and Mandel 1 so as to detect settings indicating instructions for generating the message card for each message, the settings dictating types of information that are permitted to be included in the message card for the message, as is analogously done with the notifications taught by Bechtel. Bechtel particularly teaches that the settings comprise instructions set by a recipient of a notification prior to its transmission to the user (see e.g. paragraphs 0037-0038). Accordingly, the above-described combination of the Parent, Rydenhag, Mandel 1 and Bechtel is further considered to teach a method like that of claim 29.
As per claim 30, it would have been obvious, as is described above, to modify the method taught by the Parent, Rydenhag and Mandel 1 so as to detect settings indicating instructions for generating the message card for each message, the settings dictating types of information that are permitted to be included in the message card for the message, as is analogously done with the notifications taught by Bechtel. Bechtel particularly discloses that the settings control at least one of a format of the notification and a content of the notification (see e.g. paragraphs 0027 and 0037-0038). Accordingly, the above-described combination of the Parent, Rydenhag, Mandel 1 and Bechtel is further considered to teach a method like that of claim 30 of the instant application.
As per claim 39 of the instant application, it would have been obvious, as is described above, to modify the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium taught by the Parent, Rydenhag and Mandel 1 so as to detect settings indicating instructions for generating the message card for each message, the settings dictating types of information that are permitted to be included in the message card for the message, as is analogously done with the notifications taught by Bechtel. Bechtel particularly teaches that the settings comprise instructions set by a recipient of a notification prior to its transmission to the user (see e.g. paragraphs 0037-0038). Bechtel further discloses that the settings control at least one of a format of the notification and a content of the notification (see e.g. paragraphs 0027 and 0037-0038). Accordingly, the above-described combination of the Parent, Rydenhag, Mandel 1 and Bechtel is further considered to teach a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium like that of claim 39 of the instant application.
Claims 31 and 40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the above-described combination of the Parent, Rydenhag and Mandel 1, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0124939 to Osborne et al. (“Osborne”).
As described above, the Parent, Rydenhag and Mandel 1 teach a method like that of claim 24 and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium like that of claim 34, which entail analyzing a set of messages and generating a message card for each message. The Parent, Rydenhag and Mandel 1, however, do not explicitly teach that a format of the message cards is based on display characteristics of the display device, as is required by claims 31 and 40 of the instant application.
Osborne nevertheless generally teaches formatting messages based on display characteristics of a display device upon which the messages are displayed (see e.g. paragraphs 0015 and 0026).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of the Parent, Rydenhag, Mandel 1 and Osborne before him at the time the invention was made, to modify the method and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium taught by the Parent, Rydenhag and Mandel 1 such that the format of the messages (i.e. message cards) are based on display characteristics of the display device, as is taught by Osborne. It would have been advantageous to one of ordinary skill to utilize such a combination because it would enable the messages to be presented across a variety of display devices, as is evident from Osborne (see e.g. paragraphs 0015 and 0026). Accordingly, the Parent, Rydenhag, Mandel 1 and Osborne are considered to teach, to one of ordinary skill in the art, a method like that of claim 31 and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium like that of claim 40.
Claims 33 and 42 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the above-described combination of the Parent, Rydenhag and Mandel 1, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0011258 to Khoo (“Khoo”).
As described above, the Parent, Rydenhag and Mandel 1 teach a method like that of claim 32 and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium like that of claim 41, which entail analyzing a set of messages and generating a message card for each message. Rydenhag further discloses that each message can comprise one or more attachments (see e.g. paragraphs 0013-0014, 0112-0113 and 0125, and FIG. 5.). The Parent, Rydenhag and Mandel 1, however, do not explicitly disclose that, when a message comprises a plurality of attachments, navigation icons are generated and displayed within the message enabling navigation between the different attachments, as is required by claims 33 and 42 of the instant application.
Similar to each of the message cards described by the Parent and Rydenhag, Khoo describes a dynamic preview window for viewing a summary of an email message without having to open the email message (see e.g. paragraphs 0002 and 0007). Khoo particularly discloses that when an email message comprises a plurality of attachments, the preview window can display navigation icons (links) to enable navigation between the different attachments (see e.g. paragraphs 0051-0052 and FIG. 7b).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of the Parent, Rydenhag, Mandel 1 and Khoo before him at the time the invention was made, to modify the method and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium taught by the Parent, Rydenhag and Mandel 1 so as to generate and display navigation icons within the message when the message comprises a plurality of attachments, the navigation icons enabling navigation between the different attachments, as is taught by Khoo. It would have been advantageous to one of ordinary skill to utilize such a combination because it would enable the attachments to be individually displayed and thus conserve display space, as is evident from Khoo (see e.g. paragraphs 0051-0052 and FIG. 7b). Accordingly, the Parent, Rydenhag, Mandel 1 and Khoo are considered to teach, to one of ordinary skill in the art, a method like that of claim 33 and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium like that of claim 42.
Response to Arguments
The Examiner acknowledges the Applicant’s amendments to claims 24, 34 and 43. In response to these amendments, the 35 U.S.C. § 112 rejections presented in the previous Office Action to claims 24-44 and 46-47 are respectfully withdrawn.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections, the Applicant argues that Mandel 1 fails to teach or suggest the claimed action toolbar’s card-level actions that include a navigation action that enables navigation between displayed message cards, wherein the navigation between the displayed message cards is distinguished from navigation between email messages of the set of email messages used to generate the message cards.
In response, the Examiner respectfully submits that the proffered combination of at least Rydenhag and Mandel 1 provides such a teaching. In particular, like described above, Rydenhag describes a display of message data items (e.g. email messages) in a two-dimensional scheme (see e.g. paragraph 0011). Each message data item in the two-dimensional scheme is displayed via a message card that comprises details related to the message, such as the sender, date/time and at least a portion of the message body (see e.g. paragraphs 0112-0114, and FIG. 5.). Rydenhag further teaches that each message card can display an action toolbar comprising objects indicating a plurality of actions that can be applied with respect to the message and/or card (see e.g. paragraphs 0019-0020 and 0119, and FIG. 6). Like noted above, however, Rydenhag does not disclose that the action toolbar comprises a navigation action that enables navigation between the displayed message cards like claimed.
Nevertheless, like further noted above, Mandel 1 teaches displaying a toolbar with respect to an email message, wherein the action toolbar comprises indicators (i.e. buttons) of a plurality of actions, including an indicator for a navigation action that enables navigation between displayed messages (see e.g. paragraphs 0010, 0029, 0034 and 0038-0042, and FIGS. 3 and 6). The indicator for the navigation action, for example, enables navigation between different messages in a thread (see e.g. paragraph 0042 and FIG. 6).
Like described above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Rydenhag and Mandel 1 before him at the time the invention was made, to modify the display taught by Rydenhag such that the action toolbar comprises a navigation action like taught by Mandel 1, which enables navigation between the displayed message items. It would have been advantageous to one of ordinary skill to utilize such a navigation action, because it would allow the user to more easily move through related messages, threads and folders, as is taught by Mandel 1 (see e.g. paragraphs 0009-0010 and 0038-0042).
Because Rydenhag is directed to displaying message cards to represent the respective message items, it would have particularly been apparent to enable such a navigation action between the message cards via the navigation action. Such a navigation action is distinguished from navigation between the email messages used to generate the message cards; navigating between email message cards is different from the more general, navigation through email messages per se. Additionally, as noted above, Mandel 1 teaches that the navigation action enables navigation between different messages in a thread. Such a navigation action applied to the message cards taught by Rydenhag can understandably entail navigating from an unread message card to a previously-read message card in the same thread. This can additionally or alternatively be considered a navigation action that is distinguished from navigation between email messages of the set of email messages (i.e. between unread messages) used to generate the message cards. Accordingly, the Examiner respectfully maintains that the combination of Rydenhag and Mandel 1 teaches the claimed navigation action that enables navigation between displayed message cards, wherein the navigation between the displayed message cards is distinguished from navigation between email messages of the set of email messages used to generate the message cards.
Further regarding the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections, the Applicant argues that Mandel 2 also fails to teach the claimed navigation action that enables navigation between the displayed message cards, wherein the enabled message card navigation is distinguished from navigation between email messages of the claimed set of email messages used to generate the claimed message cards.
The Examiner however respectfully submits that these arguments are moot in view of the determination that Rydenhag and Mandel 1 already teach such a navigation action, as is noted above. The combination of Rydenhag, Mandel 1 and Mandel 2 would thus also teach the navigation action enabling navigation between the displayed message cards, wherein the enabled message card navigation is distinguished from navigation between email messages of the claimed set of email messages used to generate the message cards.
Further regarding the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections, the Applicant generally argues that it would not have been obvious of modify the message cards taught by Rydenhag so as to persistently display the toolbar therein like taught by Mandel 2, because such a modification would render Rydenhag’s display inoperative.
The Examiner, however, respectfully disagrees. The Examiner notes that the toolbar (i.e. objects 524 in FIG. 6) taught by Rydenhag requires little space within each message item (i.e. message card). Via ordinary ingenuity, it would have been apparent to modify the message item to enable the persistent display of such a toolbar by, for example, slightly increasing the size of the message item to accommodate the toolbar or by removing (or decreasing the size of) information displayed in the message item to accommodate the toolbar. Neither modification would render Rydenhag’s display inoperative.
As would have been appreciated by one of ordinary skill in the art, slightly increasing the size of each message item would still enable a number of message items to be concurrently presented in the display. Even if all message items could not be presented, the display would still be operative. Rydenhag discloses that, if all message items cannot be presented on a single viewable display, a scrollbar can be provided to enable additional message items to be presented (see e.g. paragraph 0114).
As would have also been appreciated by one of ordinary skill in the art, reducing information displayed in the message item to accommodate the toolbar would also enable a number of message items to be concurrently presented in the display. Rydenhag discloses that not all of the message body needs to displayed within each message item (see e.g. paragraph 0112). It would have been apparent that the message item could be modified to accommodate a persistently-displayed toolbar without changing the size of the message item by simply displaying less of the message body. As suggested by Rydenhag (see e.g. paragraph 0012), the display is still operative even if only a portion of the message body is displayed for each message. Accordingly, the Examiner respectfully maintains that modifying the message items (i.e. cards) taught by Rydenhag so as to persistently display a toolbar therein would not render Rydenhag’s display inoperative, and that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the message items as such.
Regarding the double patenting rejections, the Applicant argues that any combination of U.S. Patent No. 10,554,608 (referred to as the “Parent” above) and Rydenhag is not a valid obviousness combination in light of the failings of Rydenhag. The Examiner, however, respectfully disagrees. For the reasons noted above, any failings of Rydenhag are remedied by other references (e.g. Mandel 1 and Mandel 2) employed in the double patenting rejections. The Applicant’s arguments concerning the double patenting rejections have thus been considered, but are not persuasive.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BLAINE T BASOM whose telephone number is (571)272-4044. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00 am - 5:30 pm, EST.
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, Matt Ell can be reached at (571)270-3264. 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.
/BTB/
3/17/2026
/MATTHEW ELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2141