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 action is responsive to amendments/remarks received 12/05/2025. Claims 1, 6-7, 11-12, 16 and 22 amended, claims 4-5 cancelled and 27-28 added. Claims 1-3, 6-9, 11-13, 15-16 and 21-28 remain pending in the application.
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.
Claims 16 and 22-24 are 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 16 recites the limitations "the one or more second properties " and “of the second alert” in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Perhaps Applicant forgot the limitation ‘detecting one or more second properties of a second alert that is different than the first alert and for the target device’?
Claims 22-24 are rejected due to their dependency on rejected base claim 16.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 16 and 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Horvitz (US Patent No. 20090099992).
In re claim 16, Horvitz teaches A system comprising:
one or more computers and one or more storage devices storing instructions that are operable, when executed by the one or more computers, to cause the one or more computers to perform operations comprising:
receiving a request to send a first alert to a target device of a target user (Para [0039]: “For example, the notification manager 130 may have just received a message from a notification source 124 and attempts to deliver the message in accordance with a bounded deferral period specified by the bounded deferral data 120.”);
determining a predicted status of the target user (Para [0049]: “In order to route notifications to the user, the notification manger 130 and/or endpoint devices 110 can include one or more models for reasoning about user states (e.g., attentional state, busyness). Such models can include substantially any type of system such as statistical mathematical models and processes that include the use of Bayesian learning, which can generate Bayesian dependency models, such as Bayesian networks, naïve Bayesian classifiers, and/or Support Vector Machines (SVMs), for example. Other type models or systems can include neural networks and Hidden Markov Models, for example. Although elaborate reasoning models can be employed in accordance with the present invention, it is to be appreciated that other approaches can also utilized. For example, rather than a more thorough probabilistic approach, deterministic assumptions can also be employed (e.g., no cell phone activity for X amount of time may imply by rule that user is not available by phone). Thus, in addition to reasoning under uncertainty as is described in more detail below, logical decisions can also be made regarding the status, location, context, focus, and so forth of users and/or associated devices.”);
determining one or more first properties of the first alert (Para [0039]: “Bounded deferral data 120 for the endpoint devices 110 is determined in consideration of a tolerated period, called a deferral period that is a generally a function of a notification sender and/or a type of message delivered.”); [[and]]
using at least the predicted status of the target user and the one or more first properties of the first alert and the one or more second properties of the second alert (Para [0048]: “For example, consider the case where an alert about a meeting reminder to a person breaks through with enough time for the user to travel to a scheduled meeting, based on the user's current location and the location of the meeting. At the time of the breakthrough, the cost of receiving additional messages may not be significantly greater than the initial breakthrough cost. Thus a system, may alert the user with a message, “You have a meeting at the Doubletree Hotel in Bellevue in 20 minutes,” and then after this alert is rendered and processed, share with the user messages of lower time criticality, “While I have your attention, tomorrow is Steven's birthday, and Joe Jones will be coming to town next week.”” and see para [0049]), merging the first alert that includes at least first data with the second alert that includes at least second data for sending a single merged alert i) that includes the first data from the first alert and the second data from the second alert and ii) to the target device instead of the first alert and the second alert (Para [0057]: “According to another aspect of the present invention, a display of notifications (e.g., journal, browser, in-box, cell phone message box) can include multiple, or pooled notifications that have been waiting, so as to send to the user a single notification that contains chunks of grouped notifications.” and see para [0086]; examiner notes applicant definition ‘merging’ in paras [0016]-[0020]—BRI used here shows ‘chunking’ notifications resulting in a single notification to be sent instead of the multiple separate notifications);
using at least the predicted status of the target user (SEE PARA [0049]) and one or more properties of the single merged alert, determining to delay presentation of the single merged alert on the target device from a first time period during which the single merged alert would normally be presented to a second, later time period (Para [0057]: “For example, if a likely free state has not been detected, and that max deferral time has been reached by a high priority notification, and at the time the max deferral has been reached for the high priority notification, information can be included about the lower priority notifications that are pending in a grouped notification—even though the lower priority notifications will not have obtained an associated max deferral at this time.”); and
in response to determining to delay presentation of the single merged alert on the target device, sending, to the target device, a message that includes instructions to cause the target device to delay presentation of the single merged alert from the first time period during which the alert would normally be presented to the second, later time period (Para [0039]: “Typically, the notification manager 130 makes general decisions about notification routing and relies on the endpoint device 110 to actually deliver the message to the user within the determined deferral period… As such, even though a message delivery deadline is approaching as defined by the bounded deferral data 120, the endpoint device 110 may still delay delivery of the message based upon detected activities or attentional state of the user.”).
In re claim 22, Horvitz teaches the operations further comprising:
determining to delay sending the first alert to the target device (Para [0039]: “For example, the notification manager 130 may have just received a message from a notification source 124 and attempts to deliver the message in accordance with a bounded deferral period specified by the bounded deferral data 120.”);
receiving a second request to send the second alert to the target device of the target user (Para [0048]: “Also, a system that has been holding back on several messages that have relatively long deferral tolerances (as they have low time criticality) that have not yet been met, may share the less critical messages at the time that a more time critical message, with a shorter deferral tolerance breaks through to a user. Such breakthroughs may incur most of the cost of information sharing, allowing other messages to pass through at low incremental cost. For example, consider the case where an alert about a meeting reminder to a person breaks through with enough time for the user to travel to a scheduled meeting, based on the user's current location and the location of the meeting. At the time of the breakthrough, the cost of receiving additional messages may not be significantly greater than the initial breakthrough cost. Thus a system, may alert the user with a message, “You have a meeting at the Doubletree Hotel in Bellevue in 20 minutes,” and then after this alert is rendered and processed, share with the user messages of lower time criticality, “While I have your attention, tomorrow is Steven's birthday, and Joe Jones will be coming to town next week.””); and
determining that the first alert and the second alert satisfy a similarity criteria (Para [0057]: “According to another aspect of the present invention, a display of notifications (e.g., journal, browser, in-box, cell phone message box) can include multiple, or pooled notifications that have been waiting, so as to send to the user a single notification that contains chunks of grouped notifications. Such chunking can present the chunks of notifications in lists ordered by max priority, max age, or max priority by group, etc.”; examiner notes applicant definition ‘similarity criteria’ in para [0017]—BRI used here shows ‘chunking’ notifications in an ordered way by similar priorities by group, resulting in a single notification to be sent instead of the multiple separate notifications.), wherein merging the first alert that includes at least the first data with the second alert that includes at least the second data comprises:
in response to determining that the first alert and the second alert satisfy the similarity criteria, creating a single merged alert by merging the first alert that includes at least the first data and the second alert that includes at least the second data (Para [0057]: “According to another aspect of the present invention, a display of notifications (e.g., journal, browser, in-box, cell phone message box) can include multiple, or pooled notifications that have been waiting, so as to send to the user a single notification that contains chunks of grouped notifications. Such chunking can present the chunks of notifications in lists ordered by max priority, max age, or max priority by group, etc.”); and
sending the single merged alert to the target device according to a determined delay (Para [0057]: “For example, if a likely free state has not been detected, and that max deferral time has been reached by a high priority notification, and at the time the max deferral has been reached for the high priority notification, information can be included about the lower priority notifications that are pending in a grouped notification--even though the lower priority notifications will not have obtained an associated max deferral at this time.”).
In re claim 23, Horvitz teaches wherein determining to delay sending the first alert to the target device comprises determining the delay (Para [0039]: “For example, the notification manager 130 may have just received a message from a notification source 124 and attempts to deliver the message in accordance with a bounded deferral period specified by the bounded deferral data 120.”).
In re claim 24, Horvitz teaches wherein the single merged alert comprises data from a most recently generated version of the first alert or the second alert (Para [0047]: “When considering multi-message interactions, such as when a message breaks through to the user, other parties can be allowed to come through as well, even if they would not have broken through to the user on their own.”, para [0057]: “According to another aspect of the present invention, a display of notifications (e.g., journal, browser, in-box, cell phone message box) can include multiple, or pooled notifications that have been waiting, so as to send to the user a single notification that contains chunks of grouped notifications.” and paras [0087]-[0088]: “Referring to FIG. 6, a new notification is received at 602. At 604 the received notification is placed onto a message queue. At 606, a determination is made as to whether the received notification should be immediately passed through to the user. This can be achieved by observing a setting such as a flag indicating whether the notification should be passed through. If the notification should be passed through, the process proceeds to 720 depicted in FIG. 7.” “Referring now to FIG. 7, a decision is made at 720 regarding the branch from 606 of FIG. 6. At 720, a determination is made as to whether the user is at the desktop or endpoint device… If such a meeting is not in place at 730, the notification is transmitted to the mobile device or endpoint device and the notification journal is updated.”).
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.
Claims 11-13, 15 and 25-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horvitz (US Patent No. 20090099992), in view of ALBINGER (WO Patent No. 2016108104 A1).
In re claim 11, Horvitz teaches One or more non-transitory computer storage media encoded with instructions that, when executed by one or more computers, cause the one or more computers to perform operations comprising:
receiving a request to send a first alert a) to a target device of a target user and b) that relates to a first event Para [0039]: “For example, the notification manager 130 may have just received a message from a notification source 124 and attempts to deliver the message in accordance with a bounded deferral period specified by the bounded deferral data 120.”);
determining a predicted status of the target user (Para [0049]: “In order to route notifications to the user, the notification manger 130 and/or endpoint devices 110 can include one or more models for reasoning about user states (e.g., attentional state, busyness). Such models can include substantially any type of system such as statistical mathematical models and processes that include the use of Bayesian learning, which can generate Bayesian dependency models, such as Bayesian networks, naïve Bayesian classifiers, and/or Support Vector Machines (SVMs), for example. Other type models or systems can include neural networks and Hidden Markov Models, for example. Although elaborate reasoning models can be employed in accordance with the present invention, it is to be appreciated that other approaches can also utilized. For example, rather than a more thorough probabilistic approach, deterministic assumptions can also be employed (e.g., no cell phone activity for X amount of time may imply by rule that user is not available by phone). Thus, in addition to reasoning under uncertainty as is described in more detail below, logical decisions can also be made regarding the status, location, context, focus, and so forth of users and/or associated devices.”);
determining one or more first properties of the first alert (Para [0039]: “Bounded deferral data 120 for the endpoint devices 110 is determined in consideration of a tolerated period, called a deferral period that is a generally a function of a notification sender and/or a type of message delivered.”);
detecting one or more second properties of a second alert that is i) for a second, different event and ii) different than the first alert and for the target device (Para [0048]: “Also, a system that has been holding back on several messages that have relatively long deferral tolerances (as they have low time criticality) that have not yet been met, may share the less critical messages at the time that a more time critical message, with a shorter deferral tolerance breaks through to a user. Such breakthroughs may incur most of the cost of information sharing, allowing other messages to pass through at low incremental cost. For example, consider the case where an alert about a meeting reminder to a person breaks through with enough time for the user to travel to a scheduled meeting, based on the user's current location and the location of the meeting. At the time of the breakthrough, the cost of receiving additional messages may not be significantly greater than the initial breakthrough cost. Thus a system, may alert the user with a message, “You have a meeting at the Doubletree Hotel in Bellevue in 20 minutes,” and then after this alert is rendered and processed, share with the user messages of lower time criticality, “While I have your attention, tomorrow is Steven's birthday, and Joe Jones will be coming to town next week.””); and
using at least the predicted status of the target user and the one or more first properties of the first alert and the one or more second properties of Para [0048]: “For example, consider the case where an alert about a meeting reminder to a person breaks through with enough time for the user to travel to a scheduled meeting, based on the user's current location and the location of the meeting. At the time of the breakthrough, the cost of receiving additional messages may not be significantly greater than the initial breakthrough cost. Thus a system, may alert the user with a message, “You have a meeting at the Doubletree Hotel in Bellevue in 20 minutes,” and then after this alert is rendered and processed, share with the user messages of lower time criticality, “While I have your attention, tomorrow is Steven's birthday, and Joe Jones will be coming to town next week.”” and see para [0049]), merging the first alert that includes at least the first data with the second alert that includes at least the second data for sending a single merged alert i) that includes the first data from the first alert and the second data from the second alert and ii) to the target device instead of the first alert and the second alert (Para [0057]: “According to another aspect of the present invention, a display of notifications (e.g., journal, browser, in-box, cell phone message box) can include multiple, or pooled notifications that have been waiting, so as to send to the user a single notification that contains chunks of grouped notifications.” and see para [0086]; examiner notes applicant definition ‘merging’ in paras [0016]-[0020]—BRI used here shows ‘chunking’ notifications resulting in a single notification to be sent instead of the multiple separate notifications).
Horvitz fails to teach determining, using at least part of the first alert and at least part of the second alert, to update first data for the first alert for the first event using second data for the second, different event.
However, Albinger teaches determining, using at least part of the first alert and at least part of the second alert, to update first data for the first alert for the first event using second data for the second, different event (Para [0042]: “Before sending an immediate alert, the processing device 14 checks to see if there is an override condition, block 41. An override condition, as used herein, is any condition that may change the action output by the processor 16. For example, if the material exceeds the threshold, but it is raining outside, then the alert that is sent to the user might be "lawn needs mowed - wet, mow tomorrow". If there is no override condition, then the alert might be "lawn needs mowed immediately". The processing device 14 will send the immediate alert, block 42, until the processing device 14 determines that immediate action is no longer needed. Alternatively, the user may turn the immediate alert off until action has been taken.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Horvitz to incorporate the teachings of Albinger to provide determining, using at least part of the first alert and at least part of the second alert, to update first data for the first alert for the first event using second data for the second, different event with the BOUNDED-DEFERRAL POLICIES FOR GUIDING THE TIMING OF ALERTING, INTERACTION AND COMMUNICATIONS USING LOCAL SENSORY INFORMATION of Horvitz. Doing so enables immediate action for an alert to no longer be needed given various alert event properties, as recognized by Albinger (Para [0042]).
In re claim 12, Horvitz and Albinger teach all of the limitations of claim 11 stated above where Horvitz further teaches the operations
determining to delay sending the first alert to the target device (Para [0039]: “For example, the notification manager 130 may have just received a message from a notification source 124 and attempts to deliver the message in accordance with a bounded deferral period specified by the bounded deferral data 120.”);
receiving a second request to send the second alert to the target device of the target user (Para [0048]: “Also, a system that has been holding back on several messages that have relatively long deferral tolerances (as they have low time criticality) that have not yet been met, may share the less critical messages at the time that a more time critical message, with a shorter deferral tolerance breaks through to a user. Such breakthroughs may incur most of the cost of information sharing, allowing other messages to pass through at low incremental cost. For example, consider the case where an alert about a meeting reminder to a person breaks through with enough time for the user to travel to a scheduled meeting, based on the user's current location and the location of the meeting. At the time of the breakthrough, the cost of receiving additional messages may not be significantly greater than the initial breakthrough cost. Thus a system, may alert the user with a message, “You have a meeting at the Doubletree Hotel in Bellevue in 20 minutes,” and then after this alert is rendered and processed, share with the user messages of lower time criticality, “While I have your attention, tomorrow is Steven's birthday, and Joe Jones will be coming to town next week.””); and
determining that the first alert and the second alert satisfy a similarity criteria (Para [0057]: “According to another aspect of the present invention, a display of notifications (e.g., journal, browser, in-box, cell phone message box) can include multiple, or pooled notifications that have been waiting, so as to send to the user a single notification that contains chunks of grouped notifications. Such chunking can present the chunks of notifications in lists ordered by max priority, max age, or max priority by group, etc.”; examiner notes applicant definition ‘similarity criteria’ in para [0017]—BRI used here shows ‘chunking’ notifications in an ordered way by similar priorities by group, resulting in a single notification to be sent instead of the multiple separate notifications.), wherein merging the first alert that includes at least the first data with the second alert that includes at least the second data comprises:
in response to determining that the first alert and the second alert satisfy the similarity criteria, creating a single merged alert by merging the first alert that includes at least the first data and the other second alert that includes at least the second data (Para [0057]: “According to another aspect of the present invention, a display of notifications (e.g., journal, browser, in-box, cell phone message box) can include multiple, or pooled notifications that have been waiting, so as to send to the user a single notification that contains chunks of grouped notifications. Such chunking can present the chunks of notifications in lists ordered by max priority, max age, or max priority by group, etc.”); and
sending the single merged alert to the target device according to a determined delay (Para [0057]: “For example, if a likely free state has not been detected, and that max deferral time has been reached by a high priority notification, and at the time the max deferral has been reached for the high priority notification, information can be included about the lower priority notifications that are pending in a grouped notification--even though the lower priority notifications will not have obtained an associated max deferral at this time.”).
In re claim 13, Horvitz and Albinger teach all of the limitations of claim 12 stated above where Horvitz further teaches wherein determining to delay sending the first alert to the target device comprises determining the delay (Para [0039]: “For example, the notification manager 130 may have just received a message from a notification source 124 and attempts to deliver the message in accordance with a bounded deferral period specified by the bounded deferral data 120.”).
In re claim 15, Horvitz and Albinger teach all of the limitations of claim 12 stated above where Horvitz further teaches wherein the single merged alert comprises data from a most recently generated version of the first alert or the second alert (Para [0047]: “When considering multi-message interactions, such as when a message breaks through to the user, other parties can be allowed to come through as well, even if they would not have broken through to the user on their own.”, para [0057]: “According to another aspect of the present invention, a display of notifications (e.g., journal, browser, in-box, cell phone message box) can include multiple, or pooled notifications that have been waiting, so as to send to the user a single notification that contains chunks of grouped notifications.” and paras [0087]-[0088]: “Referring to FIG. 6, a new notification is received at 602. At 604 the received notification is placed onto a message queue. At 606, a determination is made as to whether the received notification should be immediately passed through to the user. This can be achieved by observing a setting such as a flag indicating whether the notification should be passed through. If the notification should be passed through, the process proceeds to 720 depicted in FIG. 7.” “Referring now to FIG. 7, a decision is made at 720 regarding the branch from 606 of FIG. 6. At 720, a determination is made as to whether the user is at the desktop or endpoint device… If such a meeting is not in place at 730, the notification is transmitted to the mobile device or endpoint device and the notification journal is updated.”).
In re claim 25, Horvitz and Albinger teach all of the limitations of claim 11 stated above where Horvitz further teaches wherein merging the first alert with the second alert to create the single merged alert occurs during a first time period (SEE BELOW), the operations comprising:
determining to delay sending the single merged alert to the target device for a delay time period to cause delayed presentation of the single merged alert on the target device during a second, later time period (Para [0077]: “Additionally, users can be enabled to specify that the notification system delay such a “display upon return” policy, and allow users to get to work when they return (to avoid the frustration with being hit by alerts when they desire to return and get something done), and/or wait for the next “likely free” state to appear. A special “pass through” can be provided for notifications immune to such suppression. For such a functionality, additional “likely free” state to be can be defined as: “user away and returns and does not begin active work with an application or with the system.” That is, it can be detected if users, upon returning to their desktop or endpoint device, begin work right away, and instead, wait until a “likely available” state is reached. If the user returns and does not begin work, this new likely free state is noted and thus causing a display of the notifications that are pending. If the user returns and is busy, the system can display notifications that have exceeded their max deferral, or, per user preference, display nothing until the next “likely free” state appears.”); and
transmitting, after waiting according to the second, later time period, a message that includes instructions (Para [0039]: “Typically, the notification manager 130 makes general decisions about notification routing and relies on the endpoint device 110 to actually deliver the message to the user within the determined deferral period… As such, even though a message delivery deadline is approaching as defined by the bounded deferral data 120, the endpoint device 110 may still delay delivery of the message based upon detected activities or attentional state of the user.”) to cause the target device to present the alert during the second, later time period (Para [0077]: “At this time, the journal, chunked alerts, or single alerts are displayed to the user, depending on the quantity of journaled items.”).
In re claim 26, Horvitz and Albinger teach all of the limitations of claim 11 stated above where Horvitz further teaches the operations comprising:
in response to determining to delay presentation of the single merged alert on the target device, transmitting, to the target device, a message that includes instructions to cause the target device to delay presentation of the single merged alert from a first time period during which the alert would normally be presented to the second, later time period (Para [0039]: “Typically, the notification manager 130 makes general decisions about notification routing and relies on the endpoint device 110 to actually deliver the message to the user within the determined deferral period… As such, even though a message delivery deadline is approaching as defined by the bounded deferral data 120, the endpoint device 110 may still delay delivery of the message based upon detected activities or attentional state of the user.”).
In re claim 27, Horvitz and Albinger teach all of the limitations of claim 11 stated above where Albinger further teaches wherein:
the first alert comprises a lawn mowing notification;
the second alert comprise a notification that it is raining; and
determining to update the first data for the first alert comprises determining to switch the lawn mowing notification to a reminder to reschedule the lawn mowing (Para [0042]: “Before sending an immediate alert, the processing device 14 checks to see if there is an override condition, block 41. An override condition, as used herein, is any condition that may change the action output by the processor 16. For example, if the material exceeds the threshold, but it is raining outside, then the alert that is sent to the user might be "lawn needs mowed - wet, mow tomorrow". If there is no override condition, then the alert might be "lawn needs mowed immediately". The processing device 14 will send the immediate alert, block 42, until the processing device 14 determines that immediate action is no longer needed. Alternatively, the user may turn the immediate alert off until action has been taken.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Horvitz and Albinger to further incorporate the teachings of Albinger to provide wherein: the first alert comprises a lawn mowing notification; the second alert comprise a notification that it is raining; and determining to update the first data for the first alert comprises determining to switch the lawn mowing notification to a reminder to reschedule the lawn mowing with the BOUNDED-DEFERRAL POLICIES FOR GUIDING THE TIMING OF ALERTING, INTERACTION AND COMMUNICATIONS USING LOCAL SENSORY INFORMATION of Horvitz as modified by Albinger. Doing so enables immediate action for an alert to no longer be needed given various alert event properties, as recognized by Albinger (Para [0042]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-3, 6-9, 21 and 28 are allowed due to claim 1 incorporating previously indicated allowable subject matter.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 12/05/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 10-11 of applicant remarks, applicant argues:
“Claim 16 as amended recites features similar to those recited in claim 3. In particular, claim 16 as amended recites:
* * *
The Office Action asserts that Horvitz describes the above-cited features of claim 3, e.g., in paragraph 39 of Horvitz:
* * *
However, the cited portions of Horvitz merely describe that "the endpoint device 110 may still delay delivery of the message". Delaying delivery of a message does not disclose or suggest "sending, to the target device, a message that includes instructions to cause the target device to delay presentation of the single merged alert", as recited in amended claim 16. Mere delay of delivery does not suggest sending "instructions to cause the target device to delay presentation."
Therefore, the cited portions of Horvitz do not disclose or suggest "sending, to the target device, a message that includes instructions to cause the target device to delay presentation of the single merged alert", as recited in amended claim 16.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Horvitz teaches at least in para [0077] “Additionally, users can be enabled to specify that the notification system delay such a "display upon return" policy, and allow users to get to work when they return (to avoid the frustration with being hit by alerts when they desire to return and get something done), and/or wait for the next "likely free" state to appear. A special "pass through" can be provided for notifications immune to such suppression. For such a functionality, additional "likely free" state to be can be defined as: "user away and returns and does not begin active work with an application or with the system." That is, it can be detected if users, upon returning to their desktop or endpoint device, begin work right away, and instead, wait until a "likely available" state is reached. If the user returns and does not begin work, this new likely free state is noted and thus causing a display of the notifications that are pending. If the user returns and is busy, the system can display notifications that have exceeded their max deferral, or, per user preference, display nothing until the next "likely free" state appears. At this time, the journal, chunked alerts, or single alerts are displayed to the user, depending on the quantity of journaled items.” Examiner notes the display ‘displays nothing until the next ‘likely free’ state appears’, this occurs when the ‘notification system’ has been enabled by user preference, therefore, the chunked alerts [“single merged alert”] is delayed when the notification system tells it to do so, to a “second later time period”.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES EDWARD MUNION whose telephone number is (571)270-0437. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-5:00.
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, Steven Lim can be reached at 571-270-1210. 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.
/JAMES E MUNION/Examiner, Art Unit 2688 03/02/2026
/STEVEN LIM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2688