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 .
Response to Amendment
This Non-Final Office Action is in response to the applicant’s Request for Continued Examination/remarks and arguments filed on 11/21/2025.
Claims 1-20, filed on 11/21/2025 are being considered on the merits.
Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application.
This action is in response to the applicant’s remarks and arguments submitted on 11/21/2025. In response to the last Office Action:
Claims 1, 8 and 15 were amended.
The rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 USC § 101 as being an abstract idea, previously set forth in the Final Office Action mailed on 8/22/2025, has been withdrawn. Applicant’s arguments on pages 8-16 of the Remarks filed on 11/21/2025 are considered. Further, Applicant’s amendments of independent claims 1, 8 and 15, along with the aforementioned Applicant’s remarks result into the withdrawal of the 35 USC § 101 claims rejections as being abstract idea, which was previously set forth in the Final Office Action mailed on 8/22/2025. Applicant has demonstrated that the amended claims limitations, and the claims as a whole, provide an improvement of a practical application in providing the most relevant content to a user. For example, as discussed in paragraph [0003] of the instant application specification, wherein typically a high number of irrelevant search results are returned in response to a search query, which forces the user to conduct another search operation by issuing another query to the search server. As a result, multiple search operations are incurred as there is no mechanism for the user to exclude certain items or entities from the search result. The latency incurred due to successive calls to the search server may be unacceptable. Such situations typically deteriorate the user's search experience. Applicant's claimed concept overcomes such technical problems by providing "the graphical interface [that] includes toolbars, and a content (i.e. emails) presenting area. The toolbar includes a portion, which displays a name of the user (owner of the email account), a result icon that displays a number of items, a pruning icon, and a select mode icon.” Consequently, the recited claim features are clearly tied to a practical application i.e., pruning emails in GUI and reducing latency in obtaining desired search results.
Response to Arguments
The applicant’s remarks and/or arguments, filed on 11/21/2025 have been fully considered.
The examiner is entitled to give claim limitations their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification. See MPEP 2111 [R-1] Interpretation of Claims-Broadest Reasonable Interpretation. The applicant always has the opportunity to amend the claims during prosecution, and broad interpretation by the examiner reduces the possibility that the claim, once issued, will be interpreted more broadly than is justified. In re Prater, 162 USPQ 541,550-51 (CCPA 1969).
Applicant's below arguments in the applicant’s remarks regarding claims 1, 5, 7-8, 12, 14-15 and 19 found on pages 16-18 and filed on 11/21/2025, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant stated: “Claim 1 recites when a user selects an email, the pruning unit provides the user with options to not show emails from a sender of the selected email, …", … “Yang teaches that a mail application view 504 includes an edit element 520, if selected, displaying options for a user to remove one or more email threads from the mail application view 504. However, Yang does not teach or suggest that user's selected option(s) with respect to one email result in multiple emails including the one email being pruned. Thus, Yang does not teach claim 1's "in response to the user selecting the pruning icon and selecting a first email from the email content presented on the GUI, performing, by a pruning unit, …”
Regarding the aforementioned claim limitations, examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner asserts that the aforementioned limitation of independent claims 1, 8 and 15, as drafted and given the broadest reasonable interpretation, are disclosed by the prior art to Yang. Not only the refence to Yang discloses the above “application view 504 includes an edit element 520 …”; but also, Yang discloses in Para. [0009]: “A method for ignoring a message or subsequently received messages comprises displaying information corresponding to a plurality of messages in a messaging application. An input is received at a location on the display corresponding to a displayed message and the input indicates deletion of the displayed message. For example, the location can include a selectable user interface element associated with a trash option. In response to receiving the input, selectable user interface elements representing deletion actions to be taken on subsequent messages in a conversation thread corresponding to the displayed message are displayed proximate to the location of the displayed message. For example, the selectable user interface elements are displayed in a sheet. …, a prompt is displayed in response to receiving the input and can include options for trashing the displayed message or displaying additional deletion actions. In response to selection of one of the plurality of selectable user interface elements, the displayed message is deleted and a deletion action is set for subsequently received messages in the conversation thread.”
The examiner asserts that the disclosed language of the reference above recites the claimed language; but in particular Yang discloses “, the location can include a selectable user interface element associated with a trash option. In response to receiving the input, selectable user interface elements representing deletion actions to be taken on subsequent messages in a conversation thread corresponding to the displayed message are displayed proximate to the location of the displayed message. … a prompt is displayed in response to receiving the input and can include options for trashing the displayed message …”, which is that to the claimed language of : "in response to the user selecting the pruning icon and selecting a first email from the email content presented on the GUI, performing, by a pruning unit, …”
Furthermore, Applicant stated “Also, Yang does not teach amended claim 1's "storing information associated with the prune function in a local cache of the pruning unit."
Regarding the aforementioned amended claim limitations, examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner asserts that the aforementioned amended limitation of independent claims 1, 8 and 15, as drafted and given the broadest reasonable interpretation, are disclosed by the prior art to Yang. In particular, Yang discloses in Abstract: “An electronic device with a touch-sensitive surface and display can execute a messaging application.”; and in Fig. 1, Para. [0078]: “Memory 102 optionally includes high-speed random access memory ...”; and in Fig. 1, Para. [0079]: “Peripherals interface 118 can be used to couple input and output peripherals of the device to CPU 120 and memory 102. The one or more processors 120 run or execute various software programs and/or sets of instructions stored in memory 102 to perform various functions for device 100 and to process data.”
The examiner asserts that the reference to Yang discloses an electronic device that executes a messaging application that includes high-speed random access memory (i.e. cache) with instructions stored in memory to the claimed language of “storing information associated with the prune function in a local cache of the pruning unit.”)
For further details, please see below claims rejections under 35 USC 102 and 35 USC 103.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 5, 7-8, 12, 14-15 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent Application Publication (US 2015/0350143 A1) issued to Yang et al. (hereinafter as “YANG”).
Regarding claim 1 (Currently Amended), YANG discloses a method for pruning email content, the method comprising:
presenting, via a graphical user interface (GUI) to a user, email content in the user's email box, wherein the GUI comprises a pruning icon for receiving the user's input to perform a prune function (YANG Para. [0009]: “A method for ignoring a message or subsequently received messages comprises displaying information corresponding to a plurality of messages in a messaging application. An input is received at a location on the display corresponding to a displayed message and the input indicates deletion of the displayed message. For example, the location can include a selectable user interface element associated with a trash option. In response to receiving the input, selectable user interface elements representing deletion actions to be taken on subsequent messages in a conversation thread corresponding to the displayed message are displayed proximate to the location of the displayed message. For example, the selectable user interface elements are displayed in a sheet. …, a prompt is displayed in response to receiving the input and can include options for trashing the displayed message or displaying additional deletion actions. In response to selection of one of the plurality of selectable user interface elements, the displayed message is deleted and a deletion action is set for subsequently received messages in the conversation thread.”; and
Fig. 5, Para. [0221]: “The mail application view 504 of the email application includes additional user interface elements such as a back element 518, an edit element 520, a refresh element 522, a new draft element 524, or any other suitable element that can be used in an email application. The back element 518, if selected, displays email accounts associated with the user or additional folders of an account. The edit element 520, if selected, displays options for a user to remove one or more email threads from the mail application view 504.”,
the examiner notes that the reference discloses a user GUI interface in Fig. 5 of an edit element 520, if selected, displays options for a user to remove one or more email threads from the mail application view to that of receiving the user's input to perform a prune function);
in response to the user selecting the pruning icon and selecting a first email from the email content presented on the GUI, performing, by a pruning unit, the prune function by: providing the user with options including at least some of: not showing emails from a sender of the first email, not showing emails with a subject line of the first email, not showing emails in a folder associated with the first email, and not showing emails from a date associated with the first email (YANG Para. [0009]: “A method for ignoring a message or subsequently received messages comprises displaying information corresponding to a plurality of messages in a messaging application. An input is received at a location on the display corresponding to a displayed message and the input indicates deletion of the displayed message. For example, the location can include a selectable user interface element associated with a trash option. In response to receiving the input, selectable user interface elements representing deletion actions to be taken on subsequent messages in a conversation thread corresponding to the displayed message are displayed proximate to the location of the displayed message. For example, the selectable user interface elements are displayed in a sheet. …, a prompt is displayed in response to receiving the input and can include options for trashing the displayed message or displaying additional deletion actions. In response to selection of one of the plurality of selectable user interface elements, the displayed message is deleted and a deletion action is set for subsequently received messages in the conversation thread.”; and
Fig. 5, Para. [0221]: “The mail application view 504 of the email application includes additional user interface elements such as a back element 518, an edit element 520, a refresh element 522, a new draft element 524, or any other suitable element that can be used in an email application. The back element 518, if selected, displays email accounts associated with the user or additional folders of an account. The edit element 520, if selected, displays options for a user to remove one or more email threads from the mail application view 504.”), and
pruning, by a computing device from the GUI, multiple emails including the first email (YANG Para. [0009]: “A method for ignoring a message or subsequently received messages comprises displaying information corresponding to a plurality of messages in a messaging application. An input is received at a location on the display corresponding to a displayed message and the input indicates deletion of the displayed message. For example, the location can include a selectable user interface element associated with a trash option. In response to receiving the input, selectable user interface elements representing deletion actions to be taken on subsequent messages in a conversation thread corresponding to the displayed message are displayed proximate to the location of the displayed message. For example, the selectable user interface elements are displayed in a sheet. …, a prompt is displayed in response to receiving the input and can include options for trashing the displayed message or displaying additional deletion actions. In response to selection of one of the plurality of selectable user interface elements, the displayed message is deleted and a deletion action is set for subsequently received messages in the conversation thread.”; and
Fig. 5, Para. [0221]: “The mail application view 504 of the email application includes additional user interface elements such as a back element 518, an edit element 520, a refresh element 522, a new draft element 524, or any other suitable element that can be used in an email application. The back element 518, if selected, displays email accounts associated with the user or additional folders of an account. The edit element 520, if selected, displays options for a user to remove one or more email threads from the mail application view 504.”); and
storing information associated with the prune function in a local cache of the pruning unit (YANG Abstract: “An electronic device with a touch-sensitive surface and display can execute a messaging application.”; and
Fig. 1, Para [0077]: “It should be appreciated that device 100 is only one example of a portable multifunction device, and that device 100 optionally has more or fewer components than shown, optionally combines two or more components, or optionally has a different configuration or arrangement of the components. The various components shown in FIG. 1A are implemented in hardware, software, or a combination of both hardware and software, including one or more signal processing and/or application specific integrated circuits.”; and
Fig. 1, Para. [0078]: “Memory 102 optionally includes high-speed random access memory ...”; and
Fig. 1, Para. [0079]: “Peripherals interface 118 can be used to couple input and output peripherals of the device to CPU 120 and memory 102. The one or more processors 120 run or execute various software programs and/or sets of instructions stored in memory 102 to perform various functions for device 100 and to process data.”,
the examiner notes that the reference discloses an electronic device that executes a messaging application that includes high-speed random access memory (i.e. cache) with instructions stored in memory to the claimed language of “storing information associated with the prune function in a local cache of the pruning unit”).
Regarding Claims (8 and 15), the aforementioned claims recite similar limitations to claim 1 and therefore rejected for similar reasons as mentioned above.
Regarding claim 5 (Original), YANG teaches limitations of claim 1.
Further YANG teaches wherein the GUI comprises a result icon showing information associated with emails included in the updated email content (YANG Para. [0011]: “Next steps include displaying a header comprising the common information in a header portion of the conversation view, and displaying, visually distinguished from the header area, a message area that comprises two or more of the email messages in the conversation thread. Each of the two or more email messages comprises sender information and content information.”)
Regarding Claims (12 and 19), the aforementioned claims recite similar limitations to claim 5 and therefore rejected for similar reasons as mentioned above.
Regarding claim 7 (Original), YANG teaches limitations of claim 1.
Further, YANG teaches wherein the user input comprises a touch operation performed by the user (YANG Para. [0077]: “The various applications that are executed on the device optionally use at least one common physical user-interface device, such as the touch-sensitive surface. One or more functions of the touch-sensitive surface as well as corresponding information displayed on the device are, optionally, adjusted and/or varied from one application to the next and/or within a respective application. In this way, a common physical architecture (such as the touch-sensitive surface) of the device optionally supports the variety of applications with user interfaces that are intuitive and transparent to the user.”).
Regarding Claim (14), the aforementioned claim recites similar limitations to claim 7 and therefore rejected for similar reasons as mentioned above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 2, 4, 9, 11, 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication (US 2015/0350143 A1) issued to Yang et al. (hereinafter as “YANG”), and in view of US Patent (US 2015/0120710 A1) issued to ZHANG et al. (hereinafter as “ZHANG”).
Regarding claim 2 (Original), YANG teaches limitations of claim 1.
However, YANG does not explicitly teach providing the user with an option to search through all emails in the email content excluding the user's personal emails.
But ZHANG teaches providing the user with an option to search through all emails in the email content excluding the user's personal emails (ZHANG Para. [0059]: “The client device determines content of the preset type as content of the first type. …, the preset content is a personal account added as a friend and a followed public account. Stated another way, content of the first type may be regarded as content in a local address book.”; and
Fig. 3, Para. [0069]: “Step 305: Display the content of the first type matching with the keyword, and display search navigation bars corresponding to content of other types except content of the first type in the application.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of YANG (disclosing methods for mail content displaying options in a messaging application) to include the teachings of ZHANG (disclosing efficient content search and filtering methods) and arrive at a method to further filter a subset of the search results based on a sender of an email. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination because by enabling a user of search navigation affordances corresponds to second search results of a first content type that are shared by the user and other users, thereby obtaining search results of interest to the user, as recognized by (ZHANG, Abstract, Para. [0005]-[0008]). In addition, the references of YANG and ZHANG teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor of search result filtering and management of search results
Regarding Claims (9 and 16), the aforementioned claims recite similar limitations to claim 2 and therefore rejected for similar reasons as mentioned above.
Regarding claim 4 (Original), YANG teaches limitations of claim 1.
However, YANG does not explicitly teach providing the user with an option to exclude one or more predetermined keywords from the email content.
But ZHANG teaches providing the user with an option to exclude one or more predetermined keywords from the email content (ZHANG Fig. 4B, Para. [0072]: “As shown in FIG. 4B, an input keyword is "and". In this example, content of the first type comprises content corresponding to user's who are connected to the user (also called "contacts"; "friends"; "connections" or any other similar term used in the art). Among these contacts, several match the input keyword (e.g., search term), including: "Bigfish (and you)"; "Anderson (andsen)"; and "Wearetogether (you and me)." These displayed search results comprise at least a subset of search results of the content of the first type (e.g., in some circumstances, only a subset of search results is shown if there are too many search results to neatly display at once).”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of YANG (disclosing methods for mail content displaying options in a messaging application) to include the teachings of ZHANG (disclosing efficient content search and filtering methods) and arrive at a method to further filter a subset of the search results based on a sender of an email. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination because by enabling a user of search navigation affordances corresponds to second search results of a first content type that are shared by the user and other users, thereby obtaining search results of interest to the user, as recognized by (ZHANG, Abstract, Para. [0005]-[0008]). In addition, the references of YANG and ZHANG teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor of search result filtering and management of search results
Regarding Claims (11 and 18), the aforementioned claims recite similar limitations to claim 4 and therefore rejected for similar reasons as mentioned above.
Claims 3, 10 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication (US 2015/0350143 A1) issued to Yang et al. (hereinafter as “YANG”), and in view of US Patent (US 20150326550 A1) issued to Schropfer et al. (hereinafter as “SCHROPFER”).
Regarding claim 3, YANG teaches limitations of claim 1.
However, YANG does not explicitly teaches providing the user with an option to search through all emails in the email content excluding emails sent from a predetermined sender.
But SCHROPFER teaches providing the user with an option to search through all emails in the email content excluding emails sent from a predetermined sender (SCHROPFER Para. [0098]: “This can provide the user maximum control over emails, including “junk” or undesired emails. Commands available for each email can include: forward to my “real” email; forward all future emails from this sender; delete; delete all future emails from this sender; and many more.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of YANG (disclosing methods for mail content displaying options in a messaging application) to include the teachings of SCHROPFER (disclosing methods for email management and authentication) and arrive at a method to further filter a subset of the search results based on a sender of an email. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination because by giving users the control of refining their search results, thereby helping the user to verify email source and display only needed content, as recognized by (SCHROPFER, Abstract, Para. [0046-[0049]). In addition, the references of YANG and SCHROPFER teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor of search result filtering and management of search results.
Regarding Claims (10 and 17), the aforementioned claims recite similar limitations to claim 3 and therefore rejected for similar reasons as mentioned above.
Claims 6, 13 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication (US 2015/0350143 A1) issued to Yang et al. (hereinafter as “YANG), and in view of US Patent (US 8,214,380 B1) issued to Bettinger et al. (hereinafter as “BETTINGER”).
Regarding claim 6, YANG teaches the limitations of claim 1.
However, YANG does not explicitly teach wherein the GUI comprises a select model icon, wherein the user selecting the select model icon indicates selection of one of first and second filtering modes and the user not selecting the select model icon indicates selection of the other one of the first and second filtering modes.
But BETTINGER teaches wherein the GUI comprises a select model icon, wherein the user selecting the select model icon indicates selection of one of first and second filtering modes and the user not selecting the select model icon indicates selection of the other one of the first and second filtering modes (BETTINGER Fig. 9, Col. 19, lines (48): “With reference now to FIG. 9, the main search page (web resource search screen) 370 as generated on the user's GUI by the DPSM 186 includes a keyword input block 372 with a first name last name data entry slot 374, and an optional included words data entry slot 376 and excluded words data entry slot 378 for further refining the search results. ... Either prior to the initial search or after the initial search is conducted, the user 205 may input words in either or both of the included keywords data entry slot 376 and excluded keywords data entry slot 378 and select a search update button 381 to refine the search results to take into account the additional search terms”,
the examiner notes that the reference discloses in Fig. 6A search term data table that allows a user to choose from multiple search criteria, to that of different filtering modes which includes “Search Term Excluded Keyword” entry field, see element 299 of Fig. 6A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of YANG (disclosing methods for mail content displaying options in a messaging application) to include the teachings of BETTINGER (disclosing methods for managing and refining search results) and arrive at a method to further filter a subset of the search results based on keywords of interest and a filtering criterion. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination because by giving users the control of refining their search results, thereby helping the user to better navigate a pool of information resources, as recognized by (BETTINGER, Abstract, Col. 3, lines (36-65)). In addition, the references of YANG and BETTINGER teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor of search result filtering and management of search results.
Regarding Claims (13 and 20), the aforementioned claims recite similar limitations to claim 6 and therefore rejected for similar reasons as mentioned above.
Conclusion
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Rozich et al.; (US 20080243799 A1); “Methods for generating a set of search results, wherein a search snapshot is associated with the user selectable icons including an information icon to access information about the search or about the GUI, a sharing icon to share a saved search, an e-mail icon to email results of a search to another user, and a trash icon to delete a saved search.”
Amarendran et al.; (US 20150212889 A1); “Methods of email management, wherein users may be able to use an off-the-shelf email client application to connect to an email server and perform actions such as view, reply, delete, move, etc. with email items without having to explicitly know or remember whether the email item is archived or not.”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Zuheir A Mheir whose telephone number is (571)272-4151. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 - 5:00.
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, Ajay M Bhaita can be reached at (571)272-3906. 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.
2/7/2026
/ZUHEIR A MHEIR/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2156
/AJAY M BHATIA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2156