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 .
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.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 06/28/2023, 10/21/2024, 11/27/2024, and 12/31/2025 have been considered by the examiner. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97.
Claim Objections
Claims 9 - 11 are objected to because of the following informalities: the claims should start with “The method” for consistency. Appropriate correction is required.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim(s) 1, 5 – 6, and 9 - 11 are directed to statutory computer-readable mediums under Step 1 of the eligibility analysis. However, the claims are further directed toward a judicial exception under Step 2A Prong One of the eligibility analysis, namely an abstract idea. Under Step 2A Prong Two of the eligibility analysis, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements to integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception. Under Step 2B of the eligibility analysis, the claims are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because nothing in the asserted claims purports to improve the functioning of the computer itself or effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. The claim(s) is/are directed to the abstract computer implemented method. This is “organizing information and manipulating information through mathematical correlations, Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1350, 111 USPQ2d 1717, 1721 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The patentee in Digitech claimed methods of generating first and second data by taking existing information, manipulating the data using mathematical functions, and organizing this information into a new form. The court explained that such claims were directed to an abstract idea because they described a process of organizing information through mathematical correlations, like Flook's method of calculating using a mathematical formula. 758 F.3d at 1350, 111 USPQ2d at 1721”, (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(A)(iv)). “A claim that recites a mathematical calculation, when the claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, will be considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping. A mathematical calculation is a mathematical operation (such as multiplication) or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number, e.g., performing an arithmetic operation such as exponentiation. There is no particular word or set of words that indicates a claim recites a mathematical calculation. That is, a claim does not have to recite the word "calculating" in order to be considered a mathematical calculation. For example, a step of "determining" a variable or number using mathematical methods or "performing" a mathematical operation may also be considered mathematical calculations when the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification encompasses a mathematical calculation”. (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C)(v. using an algorithm for determining the optimal number of visits by a business representative to a client, In re Maucorps, 609 F.2d 481, 482, 203 USPQ 812, 813 (CCPA 1979)). Furthermore, the claim(s) fail to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself, (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(i). A commonplace business method or mathematical algorithm being applied on a general purpose computer, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 223, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983 (2014); Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 64, 175 USPQ 673, 674 (1972); Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). Therefore, the claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 18 - 20 are directed to a computer-readable storage medium. However, the claim is not limited to nontransitory embodiments, and the specification does not provide a definition limiting the meaning of this term to only nontransitory embodiments. The claim therefore can be reasonably interpreted as encompassing transitory signal embodiments, which are nonstatutory (In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 84 USPQ2d 1495 (Fed. Cir. 2007)). If the specification includes written description support, this rejection can be overcome by including the term “nontransitory” in the claim (see USPTO Official Gazette notice 1351 OG 212.).
The claim recites, inter alia, “computer-readable storage medium …” After close inspection, the Examiner respectfully notes that the disclosure, as a whole, does not specifically identify what may be included as a computer program product and what is not to be included as a computer program product.
An Examiner is obliged to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification during examination. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a computer program product typically covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer program product, particularly when the specification is silent. See MPEP 2111.01. When the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim covers a signal, per se, the claim must be rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as covering non-statutory subject matter.
Therefore, given the silence of the disclosure and the broadest reasonable interpretation, the computer-readable storage medium of the claim may include transitory propagating signals. As a result, the claim pertains to non-statutory subject matter.
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 – 6, 8 – 11, and 18 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) [as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 101 and 35 U.S.C. 112 rejections above] as being anticipated by Malireddi (US PgPub No. 2021/0389999).
Regarding claim 1, Malireddi teaches computer-implemented method (paragraph 0129 - 0131) comprising: detecting, by an application in a focussed operating mode, a trigger event (paragraph 0035; the focus state notification service may filter electronic notifications for surfacing in different focus panes (e.g., work focus pane, home focus pane), which may be contemporaneously open and/or executed on a computing device. In examples where the focus state notification service filters notifications for surfacing based on a user's current focus state); determining, using machine learning (ML) content classification applied to content associated with the trigger event, that content associated with the trigger event does not match a permitted topic associated with the focussed operating mode (paragraph 0027; A content importance score may be determined based on extraction of content (e.g., a message, a post) associated with an electronic notification and processing of that content. In examples, one or more natural language processing models may be applied to the content to determine a content importance score for content associated with an electronic notification. The one or more natural language processing models may comprise a keyword and/or key phrase matching model that matches the content associated with an electronic notification to one or more keywords or phrases that have been manually classified as being important or unimportant.); and responsive to determining that the content does not match the permitted topic applicable to the focussed operating mode, suppressing, by the application in the focussed operating mode, notification of the trigger event (paragraph 0029; if a determination is made that the combined priority score for the electronic notification does not meet the surfacing threshold value, the focus state notification service may block the electronic notification from being surfaced.).
Regarding claim 2, as mentioned above in the discussion of claim 1, Malireddi teaches all of the limitations of the parent claim. Additionally, Malireddi teaches detecting, by the application in the focussed operating mode, a second trigger event; determining that second content associated with the second trigger event matches the permitted topic associated with the focussed operating mode; and responsive to determining that the second content matches the permitted topic, causing, by the application in the focussed operating mode, a notification of the second trigger event to be outputted via a user interface (paragraph 0029; if a determination is made that the combined priority score for the electronic notification does not meet the surfacing threshold value, the focus state notification service may block the electronic notification from being surfaced).
Regarding claim 3, as mentioned above in the discussion of claim 1, Malireddi teaches all of the limitations of the parent claim. Additionally, Malireddi teaches detecting, by the application in the focussed operating mode, a deactivation event (paragraph 0097; a notification priority score for the electronic notification is determined. The notification priority score may be determined from a contact importance score associated with a sender/author/poster associated with the notification and/or a content importance score associated with the content of the notification); responsive to the deactivation event, switching from the focussed operating mode to a second operating mode (paragraph 0037; Blocked notifications may be kept in a hidden list that may be accessed by a user at any time to determine what notifications have been blocked while in a given focus state); and responsive to switching to the second operating mode, causing a second notification of the second trigger event to be outputted via the user interface (paragraph 0056; A user may interact with blocked notification indication 106 to cause the blocked notifications to be displayed.).
Regarding claim 4, as mentioned above in the discussion of claim 1, Malireddi teaches all of the limitations of the parent claim. Additionally, Malireddi teaches receiving via the user interface user input defining the permitted topic (paragraph 0071; The focus state notification service may adapt the model used to determine the focus state utilizing a user account's personal preferences, while also providing a manual trigger for the user to select a desired focus state; also paragraphs 0040, 0076 – 0077, 0129, and 0140 input).
Regarding claim 5, as mentioned above in the discussion of claim 1, Malireddi teaches all of the limitations of the parent claim. Additionally, Malireddi teaches wherein the focussed operating mode of the application is activated in response to an activation event, wherein the activation event is one of: a user-initiated activation input; an activation input received from a second application; a time-triggered activation event (paragraph 0036; In other examples, the user account may manually set the current focus state, which may override an automatic determination that the focus state notification service may make in that regard).
Regarding claim 6, as mentioned above in the discussion of claim 5, Malireddi teaches all of the limitations of the parent claim. Additionally, Malireddi teaches activating a second focussed operating mode of a second application responsive to the activation event, wherein the permitted topic is associated with the focussed operating mode of the application and to the second focussed operating mode of the second application (paragraph 0022; The focus state notification service may process data associated with a user account, one or more computing devices associated with that user account, and/or one or more applications associated with the user account).
Regarding claim 8, as mentioned above in the discussion of claim 1, Malireddi teaches all of the limitations of the parent claim. Additionally, Malireddi teaches detecting, by the application in the focussed operating mode, a deactivation event (paragraph 0097; a notification priority score for the electronic notification is determined. The notification priority score may be determined from a contact importance score associated with a sender/author/poster associated with the notification and/or a content importance score associated with the content of the notification); responsive to the deactivation event, switching from the focussed operating mode to an second operating mode (paragraph 0037; Blocked notifications may be kept in a hidden list that may be accessed by a user at any time to determine what notifications have been blocked while in a given focus state); detecting, by the application in the second operating mode, a third trigger event (paragraph 0037; Blocked notifications may be kept in a hidden list that may be accessed by a user at any time to determine what notifications have been blocked while in a given focus state); and responsive to the third trigger event, causing, by the application in the second operating mode, a third notification of the third trigger event to be outputted via the user interface (paragraph 0056; A user may interact with blocked notification indication 106 to cause the blocked notifications to be displayed.).
Regarding claim 9, as mentioned above in the discussion of claim 1, Malireddi teaches all of the limitations of the parent claim. Additionally, Malireddi teaches wherein the permitted topic is associated with multiple properties of a knowledge base, wherein determining that the content associated with the trigger event matches the permitted topic comprises: computing respective property association scores between the content and the multiple properties (paragraph 0027; A content importance score may be determined based on extraction of content (e.g., a message, a post) associated with an electronic notification and processing of that content. In examples, one or more natural language processing models may be applied to the content to determine a content importance score for content associated with an electronic notification. The one or more natural language processing models may comprise a keyword and/or key phrase matching model that matches the content associated with an electronic notification to one or more keywords or phrases that have been manually classified as being important or unimportant.); computing, based on the respective property association scores, a topic association score between the content and the permitted topic, and determining that the topic association score meets a topic matching threshold (paragraph 0027; A content importance score may be determined based on extraction of content (e.g., a message, a post) associated with an electronic notification and processing of that content. In examples, one or more natural language processing models may be applied to the content to determine a content importance score for content associated with an electronic notification. The one or more natural language processing models may comprise a keyword and/or key phrase matching model that matches the content associated with an electronic notification to one or more keywords or phrases that have been manually classified as being important or unimportant.).
Regarding claim 10, as mentioned above in the discussion of claim 1, Malireddi teaches all of the limitations of the parent claim. Additionally, Malireddi teaches wherein the notification is caused to be outputted responsive to determining that: 1) the content matches the permitted topic (paragraph 0025; The focus state notification service may additionally determine a notification priority score for an electronic notification. In examples, the notification priority score may be determined from a contact importance score and/or a content importance score.), and 2) the trigger event is associated with a permitted user identity (paragraph 0025; The focus state notification service may additionally determine a notification priority score for an electronic notification. In examples, the notification priority score may be determined from a contact importance score and/or a content importance score.).
Regarding claim 11, as mentioned above in the discussion of claim 9, Malireddi teaches all of the limitations of the parent claim. Additionally, Malireddi teaches causing, by the application in the focussed mode, content of at least one of the multiple properties of the knowledge base to be outputted to the user interface (paragraphs 0027 and 0044; one or more embeddings may be generated for text associated with an electronic notification, and similarity scores between those embeddings and one or more previously embedded words, strings, sentences, and/or documents in an embedding library may be determined. Thus, a determination may be made based on the similarity scores as to whether a newly generated embedding related to a new electronic notification is similar to previously generated embeddings that were classified as being important, unimportant, and/or relating to spam, for example).
Regarding claim 18, Malireddi teaches a computer-readable storage medium configured to store a first application, the first application being configured, upon execution on a processor (paragraphs 0131 – 0132, 0137 - 0144), to cause the processor to: receive from a second application an activation event (paragraph 0022; The focus state notification service may process data associated with a user account, one or more computing devices associated with that user account, and/or one or more applications associated with the user account); activate a focussed operating mode of the first application responsive to the activation event (paragraph 0036; In other examples, the user account may manually set the current focus state, which may override an automatic determination that the focus state notification service may make in that regard); select, based on a permitted topic associated with the activation event, from a plurality of content items associated with the first application, a content item matching the permitted topic (paragraph 0027; A content importance score may be determined based on extraction of content (e.g., a message, a post) associated with an electronic notification and processing of that content. In examples, one or more natural language processing models may be applied to the content to determine a content importance score for content associated with an electronic notification. The one or more natural language processing models may comprise a keyword and/or key phrase matching model that matches the content associated with an electronic notification to one or more keywords or phrases that have been manually classified as being important or unimportant.); and cause, by the first application in the focussed operating mode, a visual indication of the content item matching the permitted topic to be displayed via a user interface (paragraph 0056; A user may interact with blocked notification indication 106 to cause the blocked notifications to be displayed.).
Regarding claim 19, as mentioned above in the discussion of claim 18, Malireddi teaches all of the limitations of the parent claim. Additionally, Malireddi teaches wherein the permitted topic is associated with multiple properties of a knowledge base, wherein selecting the content item comprises: computing respective property association scores between the content item and the multiple properties, computing, based on the respective property association scores, a topic association score between the content item and the permitted topic, and determining that the topic association score meets a topic matching threshold (paragraph 0027; A content importance score may be determined based on extraction of content (e.g., a message, a post) associated with an electronic notification and processing of that content. In examples, one or more natural language processing models may be applied to the content to determine a content importance score for content associated with an electronic notification. The one or more natural language processing models may comprise a keyword and/or key phrase matching model that matches the content associated with an electronic notification to one or more keywords or phrases that have been manually classified as being important or unimportant. Also paragraph 0029; if a determination is made that the combined priority score for the electronic notification does not meet the surfacing threshold value, the focus state notification service may block the electronic notification from being surfaced.).
Regarding claim 20, as mentioned above in the discussion of claim 19, Malireddi teaches all of the limitations of the parent claim. Additionally, Malireddi teaches wherein the permitted topic is associated with a topic entity of a knowledge base, wherein the content item matching the permitted topic is selected from the properties of the topic entity (paragraphs 0027 and 0044; one or more embeddings may be generated for text associated with an electronic notification, and similarity scores between those embeddings and one or more previously embedded words, strings, sentences, and/or documents in an embedding library may be determined. Thus, a determination may be made based on the similarity scores as to whether a newly generated embedding related to a new electronic notification is similar to previously generated embeddings that were classified as being important, unimportant, and/or relating to spam, for example).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter for claim 7: “determining a focus time interval; storing a first indication of the focus time interval; storing a second indication of the permitted topic in association with the first indication of the focus interval, the activation event being commencement of the focus interval; causing a calendar view to be rendered via the user interface; generating in the calendar view a visual representation of the focus interval and the permitted topic” in combination with the other limitations in the claim and the parent claim is not discussed or suggested in any of the prior art that was searched.
Claims 12 - 16 are allowed.
The following is an examiner's statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding independent claim 12, the prior art of record fails to teach or fairly suggest first instructions encoding a first application and second instructions encoding a second application; and a processor coupled to the memory, the processor configured to execute the computer-readable instructions which, when executed on the processor, cause the processor to carry out operations comprising: determining a focus initiation time; storing a first indication of the focus initiation time; storing a second indication of a permitted topic in association with the first indication of the focus initiation time; responsive to reaching the focus initiation time, activating: a first focussed operating mode of a first application, and a second focussed operating mode of a second application; selecting based on the permitted topic, from a first plurality of content items associated with the first application, a first content item matching the permitted topic; selecting based on the permitted topic, from a second plurality of content items associated with the second application, a second content item matching the permitted topic; causing a user interface to render within a first display area associated with the first application a first visual indication of the first content item; and causing a user interface to render within a second display area associated with the second application a second visual indication of the second content item; in combination with other elements of the claim.
Regarding claims 13 - 16, claims 13 - 16 are allowed as being dependent from allowed claim 8.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Limsopatham (US patent No. 20190012591) teaches a machine learning system with processing.
SETAYESH (US patent No. 20160034560) teaches a machine learning system with processing.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Usman A Khan whose telephone number is (571)270-1131. The examiner can normally be reached on M - Th 5:30 AM - 2 PM, F 5:30 AM - Noon.
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, Sinh Tran can be reached on (571)272-7564. 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.
Usman Khan
/USMAN A KHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2637
01/21/2026