DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/02/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
The following is a Non-Final Office Action in response to applicant’s request for continued examination received on 01/02/2026.
Claims 1, 2, 6, 9, 10,14, 16, and 18 are amended. Claims 3-4 and 11-12 are cancelled. Claims 1, 2, 5-10, and 13-20 are considered in this Office Action. Claims 1, 2, 5-10, and 13-20 are currently pending.
Claim Objections
Claims 15, 16, and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 15 recites duplicate wording in “and in response to receiving a user selection of the link via the graphical user interface, […] that the respective new update for the for the particular issue has been viewed”. The claim should read “and in response to receiving a user selection of the link via the graphical user interface, […] that the respective new update
Claims 16 recites “in response to detecting a user input to the issue date for the particular issue, causing the server system to update the respective workflow and the priority level based on the user input”. The claim should read “in response to detecting a user input to the issue data for the particular issue, causing the server system to update the respective workflow and the priority level based on the user input.”
Claim 18 recites a selected indication associated with the particular issue, but then states “the update summary for a particular issue has been viewed.” The examiner notes using the article “a” potentially introduces a different issue. The claim should read “the update summary for the particular issue has been viewed.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action.
Response to §101 arguments: Applicant's arguments and amendments (Remarks at pgs. 11-14) concerning the 101 rejection of claims 1, 2, 5-10, and 13-20 have been considered and found sufficient to overcome the $101 rejection. The Claims are directed to a specific improvement in the operation of an issue tracking system by synchronizing update notifications, view flags, priority levels, and the display order of issue cards in response to user interactions, rather than merely organizing or displaying information on a GUI. The claimed operation improves information presented across the graphical user interface and issue-tracking systems by dynamically updating and redisplaying issue cards based on changes to issue priority and viewing history. The claims are patent eligible under 35 USC 101 as amended claims recite limitations which are not abstract under Prong 2 of Step 2A of the Alice analysis. The claims integrate any abstract idea into practical application, and therefore are eligible. The 35 U.S.C. §101 is withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1, 2, 5-10, and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1, 10, and 16, the claims each recite “a respective view flag corresponding to the each at least one respective update.” The phrase is grammatically inconsistent and fail to the relationship between the recited view flag and the recited update/updates. It is unclear whether the limitation requires a view flag corresponding collectively to one or more updates associated with an issue, a separate respective view flag corresponding to each respective update associated with the issue, or some other relationship between the view flag and the updates. Accordingly, the metes and bounds of the claims cannot be determined with reasonable certainty, rendering claims 1, 10, and 16 indefinite.
Regarding claim 10, the claim recites “in response to receiving, via the graphical user interface, a user selection of the card from the set of cards displayed on the issue summary board…” however, the claim previously recites “multiple cards” and “each card” without identifying a particular card. Therefore, “the card” lacks proper antecedent basis, and therefore is definite. The examiner notes the claims should read “in response to receiving, via the graphical user interface, a user selection of a card from the set of cards displayed on the issue summary board…” to establish proper antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 16, the claim recites “a mobile device associated with a user account,” but later recites “a request from the first user account.” The recitation of “the first user account” lacks proper antecedent basis because only “a user account” has been previously introduces, which renders the claim indefinite.
Claims 2, 5-9, 14-15, and 17-20 depend from one of claims rejected and fail to cure the deficiency noted above, and are therefore rejected based on dependency.
Discussion of Prior Art
Claims 1, 2, 5-10, and 13-20 would be allowable, if they were amended in such way to overcome the 35 USC 112(b) rejections set forth in the action.
Independent claims 1, 10, and 16 are rendered neither obvious nor anticipated by the available field of prior art. The claims overcome the prior art combination of the record such that none of the cited prior art references can be applied to form the basis of a 35 USC 102 rejection nor can they be combined to fairly suggest in combination, the basis of a 35 USC 103 rejection when the limitations are read in the particular environment of the claims.
The closet prior art of record is Ashka Vakil (US 2021/0124462 A1, hereinafter “Vakil”), Paul E. Reeves (US 2013/0078959 A1, hereinafter “Reeves”), Terrance Patrick Tietzen (US 2015/0006244 A1, hereinafter “Tietzen”), Daniel Lowe Wheeler (US 2014/0201289 A1, hereinafter “Wheeler”), Patrick Schur (US 2019/0205148 A1, hereinafter “Schur”), and Hang Chen (US 2018/0067914 A1, hereinafter “Chen”).
Vakil is directed to system and method that include: a notification builder implemented through a graphical user interface (“GUI”) provides a platform for building notifications and defining priorities for how the notifications will be presented to users of managed devices. Elements included in the notification builder and selectable as part of a build process can provide options for naming a notification, providing content for the notification, defining recipients, setting a respective priority, and creating action buttons. An action button can allow a user that has received a notification built with the notification builder to interact with the notification in a predetermined manner. The GUI can also provide data relating to the notification, such as success/failure, read/unread, etc. Reeves is directed to system and method that include: displaying indications of notifications received by a multi-screen device. The notifications may relate to a number of different categories including, without limitation, phone calls, SMS messages, email, notifications from applications, battery level, and signal strength. The multi-screen device includes a unified desktop that displays indications of the notifications regardless of the state of the multi-screen device, which in embodiments includes an undocked state and a docked state, in which a peripheral screen is used to display the indications. The indications may be displayed differently depending on the state of the multi-screen device. Tietzen is directed to system and method that include: A merchant may want to view a list of current and past alerts. A merchant may want to be able to sort the list of alerts that they have received by new or all, or another parameter or attribute. A merchant may want to be able to dismiss an alert that they do not want to take action on. A merchant may want to view the details of past or current alerts. There are different actions the merchant can take that will update the status of an alert from `new` to `past. ` For example, viewing an alert in the detailed page view may update the status of an alert. As another example, pressing the `dismiss` button may update the status of an alert. `New` and `past` are examples only and other statuses may be `saved`, `flag`, and so on, so merchants will be able to view alerts in detail while bookmarking them for later action. Wheeler is directed to system and method that include: providing event notifications to a user across multiple client devices or platforms. In some embodiments, a notification feed can include a stream or sequence of messages reporting the occurrence of various events, such as when the user is invited to join a shared content repository or group, when the user accepts (or declines) such an invitation, or when activities involving the user's account are detected (e.g., changes to security settings such as a password, billing errors, exceeding a quota, or the like). If a user takes action on one device, notifications on all devices can be updated to reflect the action. Schur is directed to system and method that include: User activity/service profile(s)—the same user can have several trusted profiles and non-trusted profiles. Sharing level specific newsfeed via news bat (like WhatsApp user to user, or user to user group). Sharing level specific service feed via service bot; service tracking of workflow or activity flow of different sharing level, with task delegation and verification in context of operant/bubble tag(s) circle with status check & progress of task e.g. project management, task management. Chen is directed to system and method that include: user request prompt for a manager's approval, according to an embodiment. In this example, Xiaohei's manager Xiaobai can use an EIM session window on her mobile device, which can display a time-off request prompt 300 summarizing Xiaohei's request. The system can display prompt 300 within the EIM session window, enabling Xiaobai to select the “approve” or “reject” buttons 302 directly in the EIM session window. This configuration can simplify Xiaobai's operation, and streamline the collaborative workflow with Xiaohei and other users.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Carl Wolz (US 20160164810 A1): An actionable notification service supports a notification publication and subscription system that interacts with registered endpoints such as smartphones, tablets, and PCs so that notifications can be distributed and effectively managed across multiple endpoints. Applications on registered endpoints can publish notifications into the system to which other registered endpoints may subscribe. The notifications received at the subscribing endpoints are displayed and raised in a manner to be fully actionable so that users can interact with the publishing application as a native experience using either a local handler or by implementing a remote session into the publishing endpoint.
Ryan William White (US 20190297040 A1): A logic device receives message from a remote computing system, outputs notification of the message through the output subsystem and receives a request for a deferral of the message through the input subsystem, where the request for the deferral comprises an annotation to-be stored for later presentation with the message, the annotation comprises one of a voice input, a text input and an image input and the annotation includes an indication of a target situation for message presentation.
Hrishikesh Aradhye(US 20140229880 A1): systems and methods for determining the priority of a notification on a mobile device using machine learning. Other aspects of the disclosed technology include selectively displaying notifications based on the priority of a notification.
Lorne Keith Trudeau(US 20160379314 A1): A method for introducing action items via a social media interface of a social media platform is provided. The method detects, at a server, an incomplete feedback request submitted to the social media platform, wherein the incomplete feedback request lacks response, and wherein the social media platform is connected to the server; generates an action item post from the incomplete feedback request; and provides, by the server over a network, the action item post via the social media interface.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REHAM K ABOUZAHRA whose telephone number is (571)272-0419. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00 AM to 5:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Brian Epstein can be reached at (571)-270-5389. 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.
/REHAM K ABOUZAHRA/Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights