DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 6/27/2022 was filed before the first office action. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 19 is rejected for the indefinite dependency of both independent claim 19, and dependent claim 16, which ultimately is dependent on another different independent claim (claim 10).
Claim Rejection Notes
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 10, 13, and 19, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharifi et al. (US 20210211476 A1, published: 7/8/2021), in view of Rathod (US 20110276396 A1, published: 11/10/2011).
Claim 1: Sharifi teaches a computing apparatus comprising: one or more computer readable storage media; one or more processors operatively coupled with the one or more computer readable storage media; and an application comprising program instructions stored on the one or more computer readable storage media that, when executed by the one or more processors (any suitable computer readable media can be used for storing instructions for performing the functions and/or processes herein [Sharifi, 0083]), direct the computing apparatus to at least:
communicate with an online service to obtain activity information indicative of activities undertaken by a user and activity topics produced by the online service for the activities (receiving, from a first user device, a request to present media content recommendations on the first user device… [Sharifi, 0006]);
group the activities into activity groups based at least on the topics produced for the activities (receiving, from a first user device, a request to present media content recommendations on the first user device; in response to receiving the request, determining information indicating a user context associated with the first user device and network connectivity information associated with a connection status of the first user device over a communications network; identifying a group of media content items to recommend based on the user context and the network connectivity information [Sharifi, 0006]); and
enable a display of the activity groups in a user interface to the application (and causing recommendations for the group of media content items to be presented on the first user device [Sharifi, 0006]).
Sharifi does not teach obtain activity information indicative of activities undertaken by a user and activity topics, wherein the activities include physical activities and digital activities.
However, Rathod teaches obtain activity information indicative of activities undertaken by a user and activity topics, wherein the activities include physical activities and digital activities (monitoring & tracking user's one or more types of physical or digital activities, actions, interactions, communications, responses, events, transactions, life stream, logs, locations, behavior, movement, environment, status, states & conditions from one or more sources [Rathod, 0047]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the invention was filed, to modify the activity topic obtaining and displaying invention of Sharifi to include the physical and digital activities feature of Rathod.
One would have been motivated to make this modification to expand the scope of presented activities to include both physical and digital activities. Such would expand the scope of which activities are counted by showing both digital computer activities with healthy outside activities. Such will allow users to monitor how often they are doing physical activities like exercise, so that they keep track of how often they spend in front of a computer/phone and are exercising.
Claims 10 and 19, sharing similar elements to claim 1, are likewise rejected.
Claim 4: The combination of Sharifi, and Rathod, teaches the computing apparatus of claim 1. Rathod further teaches wherein the user interface includes multiple views of the activity groups filtered based on a characteristic of each of the activities (apply one or more filter(s) including ALL, EXACT, ANY, NONE words and one or more or combination of sorting type(s) including ascending & descending order, rank wise, category wise, date & time wise, hit wise, location wise, language wise, availability status wise, price wise (free or paid) with one or more search or command syntax string(s) [Rathod, 0025]; [Rathod, 0026]).
Claim 13, sharing similar elements to claim 4, is likewise rejected, wherein claim 13 also includes the teachings of Mallet (claims 3 & 12) and its motivation is the same as has been reported in the rejection to claim 3 below.
Claim(s) 2 and 11, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharifi et al. (US 20210211476 A1, published: 7/8/2021) and Rathod (US 20110276396 A1, published: 11/10/2011), and in further view of Mallet et al. (US 20120246266 A1, published: 9/27/2012).
Claim 2: The combination of Sharifi, and Rathod, teaches the computing apparatus of claim 1. The combination of Sharifi, and Rathod, does not teach wherein, to group the activities into the activity groups based at least on the activity topics, the program instructions direct the computing apparatus to group the activities based on a proximity of each of the activity topics to each other of the activity topics.
However, Mallet teaches wherein, to group the activities into the activity groups based at least on the activity topics, the program instructions direct the computing apparatus to group the activities based on a proximity of each of the activity topics to each other of the activity topics (the group content ranker module 414 receives metadata regarding proximity, connections, and the like between the first client device 300 and other client devices 300 each time the group content ranker module 414 ranks the candidate groups 110 for particular content 120 to adjust the ranking [Mallet, 0044]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the invention was filed, to modify the activity topic obtaining and displaying invention of the combination of Sharifi, and Rathod, to include the grouping of topics compared to proximity with activities feature of Mallet.
One would have been motivated to make this modification to expand the data used to view and understand times spent with activities and how they relate with each other.
Claim 11, sharing similar elements to claim 2, is likewise rejected.
Claim(s) 3 and 12, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharifi et al. (US 20210211476 A1, published: 7/8/2021), Rathod (US 20110276396 A1, published: 11/10/2011), and Mallet et al. (US 20120246266 A1, published: 9/27/2012), and in further view of Ideses et al. (US 20170060986 A1, published: 3/2/2017).
Claim 3: The combination of Sharifi, Rathod, and Mallet, teaches the computing apparatus of claim 2. The combination does not teach wherein the program instructions further direct the computing apparatus to identify a label for each activity group, of the activity groups, based at least on those of the activity topics grouped into the activity group.
However, Ideses teaches wherein the program instructions further direct the computing apparatus to identify a label for each activity group, of the activity groups, based at least on those of the activity topics grouped into the activity group (each data object is associated with and/or assigned a classification label of a predefined content category [Ideses, 0121]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the invention was filed, to modify the activity topic obtaining and displaying invention of the combination of Sharifi, Rathod, and Mallet, to include the grouping labels feature of Ideses.
One would have been motivated to make this modification to prominently label activities into groups, to best keep track of similar activities.
Claim 12, sharing similar elements to claim 3, is likewise rejected.
Claim(s) 5-9 and 14-18, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharifi et al. (US 20210211476 A1, published: 7/8/2021) and Rathod (US 20110276396 A1, published: 11/10/2011), and in further view of Elizarov et al. (US 20120137316 A1, published: 5/31/2012).
Claim 5: The combination of Sharifi, and Rathod, teaches the computing apparatus of claim 4. The combination does not teach wherein each view, of the multiple views, includes a detailed view for each activity in an activity group displayed in the view.
However, Elizarov teaches wherein each view, of the multiple views, includes a detailed view for each activity in an activity group displayed in the view (FIG. 2 illustrates a more detailed view of the initial step of the present method, wherein the anchorman of the mass media system determines the topics of the online and offline user generated content (UGC), which circulates inside the groups of users (social networks, email services, open Web, watchers, listeners, and etc), most commented by the users and the most searched topics of the content presented at the web based search engines for presenting these topics to the groups of users [Elizarov, 0035, FIG. 2]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the invention was filed, to modify the activity topic obtaining and displaying invention of the combination of Sharifi, and Rathod, to include the multiple views feature of Elizarov.
One would have been motivated to make this modification to effectively keep track of different data displays by effectively grouping them into different viewing windows.
Claim 14, sharing similar elements to claim 5, is likewise rejected.
Claim 6: The combination of Sharifi, Rathod, and Elizarov, teaches the computing apparatus of claim 5. Rathod further teaches wherein the detailed view includes a description of the activity, a day of the activity, and a time of the activity (Life stream covers all chronological user generated or created or provided or updated action item(s) with metadata including taxonomy categories, date & time, rank, review notes or comments and like [Rathod, 0021]).
Claim 15, sharing similar elements to claim 6, is likewise rejected.
Claim 7: The combination of Sharifi, Rathod, and Elizarov, teaches the computing apparatus of claim 6. Rathod further teaches wherein the activity group includes a physical activity and a digital activity (physical or digital activities [Rathod, 0047]).
Claim 16, sharing similar elements to claim 7, is likewise rejected.
Claim 8: The combination of Sharifi, Rathod, and Elizarov, teaches the computing apparatus of claim 7. Rathod further teaches wherein the physical activity comprises an outdoor activity undertaken by the user at a physical location identified in the detailed view (user might be connected to 10, 100, or 500 friends on social networking web site, external domains, outside world, many of whom take actions on the social networking web site, external domains, outside world, that reflect news in their real lives [Rathod, 0294]).
Claim 17, sharing similar elements to claim 8, is likewise rejected.
Claim 9: The combination of Sharifi, Rathod, and Elizarov, teaches the computing apparatus of claim 8. Rathod further teaches wherein the digital activity comprises an online activity undertaken by the user with respect to an online service identified in the detailed view (a "User" is who have action or activity or status server or network account and send and receive activity, action, status & log feed to and from one or more other users, domains, applications, services, objects, networks, groups, web pages, databases, devices who are identified or registered with system [Rathod, 0019]).
Claim 18, sharing similar elements to claim 9, is likewise rejected.
Additional References
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following references gather information from an external database, and present grouped activities:
Might (US 20040267794 A1, published: 12/30/2004)
Han et al. (US 20130197979 A1, published: 8/1/2013)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SETH A SILVERMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-9783. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thur, 8AM-4PM MST.
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, Adam Queler can be reached at (571)272-4140. 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.
/Seth A Silverman/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2172