DETAILED ACTION
Acknowledgement
This final office action is in response to the amendment filed on 08/15/2025.
Status of Claims
Claims 1 and 3-20 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 are now pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 08/15/2025 regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 and 102 rejections of claims 1-20 have been fully considered. The Applicant argues the following.
(1) As per the 101 rejection, the Applicant argues, in summary, that (i) the claim limitations do not amount to the alleged abstract ideas of mental process and certain methods of organizing human activity since these recitations are computer functions pertaining to communications over a network and visualizations; and (ii) The claims integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The additional elements recited in the claims enable improved processing across different communications and corresponding applications. Users may be inundated with a constant stream of different types of messages, making it difficult to distinguish between important information and low-priority messages. Accordingly, an embodiment analyzes the different types of communication (e.g. email, chat, telephone call, etc.) of different applications with respect to a calendar event to identify high-priority communications for that calendar event.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner submits that although the claims recite computer functions, the claims also recite abstract steps/processes as well. The claims describe the abstract process of a process of analyzing communications of a user, identifying high-priority communications via scoring and comparing to threshold criteria, and alerting the user regarding the high-priority communications. Analyzing communications and identifying high-priority communications based on relevance and urgency scoring and thresholds can practically be performed in the human mind via observation and evaluation. Alerting the user regarding high-priority communications that were unread or unanswered in order for the user to address them is considered an act of managing personal behavior. As per MPEP 2106.04(a), a claim recites a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim. The courts have found claims requiring a generic computer or nominally reciting a generic computer may still recite a mental process even though the claim limitations are not performed entirely in the human mind. Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity can encompass the activity of a single person (e.g. a person following a set of instructions), activity that involve multiple people (e.g. a commercial interaction), and certain activity between a person and a computer (e.g. a method of anonymous loan shopping).
The Examiner also submits that the additional elements recited in the claims and listed in Steps 2A(2) and 2B do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements do not improve the functioning of a computer or improve upon another technology. The Applicant argues that the improvement is in the analysis of the different types of communication and in the identifying and alerting of high-priority communications for a user, which is considered abstract. Per MPEP 2106.05(a), an improvement in the abstract idea itself is not an improvement in technology. The analysis, identifying, and alerting abstract processes are being performed in and linked to a particular technological environment. The technology or technological environment being used to implement the Applicant’s invention is not being improved beyond its original functions and capabilities. Limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection is maintained.
(2) As per the 102 rejection, the Applicant argues that amended claim 1 limitations are allowable over any cited reference or combination of references.
The Examiner somewhat disagrees. The Examiner submits that the Cotan-Doten reference does not explicitly teach all of the limitations in amended claim 1. Therefore, the previous 102 rejection has been withdrawn. However, based upon an updated search and consideration, a new 103 rejection is made against all pending claims. See details below. Therefore, the claims are not allowable.
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 .
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention, “Detecting and Prioritizing Electronic Communications Based on User Calendar Events”, is directed to an abstract idea, specifically Mental Processes and Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, without significantly more. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements individually or in combination provide mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
Step 1: Claims 1-20 are directed to a statutory category, namely a process (claims 1-8), a machine (claims 9-16), and a manufacture (claims 17-20).
Step 2A (1): Independent claims 1, 9, and 17 are directed to an abstract idea of Mental Processes and Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, based on the following claim limitations: “analyzing…a plurality of unread or unanswered communications received by a user with respect to a plurality of calendar events of the user…; determining,…, relevance of the plurality of unread or unanswered communications to a particular calendar event of the plurality of calendar events; dynamically adjusting,…, a relevance threshold based on aspects of the particular calendar event; determining,…, that the plurality of unread or unanswered communications satisfy the relevance threshold; determining,…, a priority value for the plurality of unread or unanswered communications based on the relevance and an urgency of the plurality of unread or unanswered communications; identifying one or more high-priority communications in the plurality of unread or unanswered communications, based on the priority value for the plurality of unread or unanswered communications with respect to the particular calendar event; generating…an alert regarding one or more high-priority communications;.”. These claims describe a process of analyzing communications of a user, identifying high-priority communications via scoring and comparing to threshold criteria, and alerting the user regarding the high-priority communications. Dependent claims 2-8, 10-16, and 18-20 further describe the analysis of the communications, the types of communication, the identifying of high-priority communication, and the alerting of the user. Analyzing communications and identifying high-priority communications based on relevance and urgency scoring and thresholds can practically be performed in the human mind via observation and evaluation. Alerting the user regarding high-priority communications that were unread or unanswered in order for the user to address them is considered an act of managing personal behavior. Therefore, these limitations, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the abstract groupings of Mental Processes which include concepts performed in the human mind such as observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions and Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity which encompasses managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions. Mental Processes include claims directed to collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer. Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity can encompass the activity of a single person (e.g. a person following a set of instructions), activity that involve multiple people (e.g. a commercial interaction), and certain activity between a person and a computer (e.g. a method of anonymous loan shopping). Therefore, claims 1-20 are directed to an abstract idea and are not patent eligible.
Step 2A (2): This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claims 1, 4, 7-9, 12, 15-17, and 20 recite additional elements of “via at least one processor; …communications are from client applications handling different types of communications; generating, via the at least one processor, an alert window…; overlaying, via the at least one processor, the alert window over a window…displayed on a user device of the user, wherein the alert window is overlayed using a graphical indicator…; wherein the client applications include two or more from a group of: a telephony client, an e-mail client, a chat client, and a short messaging service client; … providing an audio alert; alert window; …providing a haptic alert; a system comprising: one or more computer processors; one or more computer readable storage media; and program instructions stored on the one or more computer readable storage media for execution by at least one of the one or more computer processors, the program instructions comprising instructions to cause the one or more computer processors to perform operations; and one or more non-transitory computer readable storage media having program instructions embodied therewith, the program instructions executable by a computer to cause the computer to perform operations ”. These additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claims do not recite (a) an improvement to another technology or technical field and (b) an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself and (c) implementing the abstract idea with or by use of a particular machine, (d) effecting a particular transformation or reduction of an article, or (e) applying the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. These additional elements evaluated individually and in combination are viewed as computing and display devices that are used to perform the abstract process of analyzing communications of a user, identifying high-priority communications, and alerting the user regarding the high-priority communications. Limitations that recite mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea are not indicative of integration into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment (e.g. electronic communications on user device) in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Therefore, claims 1-20 do not include individual or a combination of additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and thus are not patent eligible.
Step 2B: The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claims 1, 4, 7-9, 12, 15-17, and 20 recite additional elements of “via at least one processor; …communications are from client applications handling different types of communications; generating, via the at least one processor, an alert window…; overlaying, via the at least one processor, the alert window over a window…displayed on a user device of the user, wherein the alert window is overlayed using a graphical indicator…; wherein the client applications include two or more from a group of: a telephony client, an e-mail client, a chat client, and a short messaging service client; … providing an audio alert; alert window; …providing a haptic alert; a system comprising: one or more computer processors; one or more computer readable storage media; and program instructions stored on the one or more computer readable storage media for execution by at least one of the one or more computer processors, the program instructions comprising instructions to cause the one or more computer processors to perform operations; and one or more non-transitory computer readable storage media having program instructions embodied therewith, the program instructions executable by a computer to cause the computer to perform operations ”. These additional elements are viewed as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer and merely indicates a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception. Applying an abstract idea on a computer does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Therefore, claims 1-20 do not include individual or a combination of additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception and thus are not patent eligible.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dotan-Cohen et al. (US 2017/0118348 A1) in view of Horvitz (WO-2005006130-A2).
As per claims 1, 9, and 17 (Currently Amended), Dotan-Cohen teaches a method for prioritizing communications relating to a meeting comprising (Dotan-Cohen e.g. FIG. 4 flow diagram is provided illustrating one example method 400 for providing to a user personalized notification content regarding an unaddressed event [0105]. Events can include voice/video calls; email; SMS text messages; instant messages; notifications; social media or social networking news items or communications (e.g. tweets, Facebook posts or "likes", invitations, news feed items);...calendar events, reminders, or notifications; meeting requests or invitations; etc. [0017]. The notification content generated in step 450 includes notification logic. Notification logic may specify rules, conditions, constraints, times (including future times or time windows), priority with regards to other notifications, and/or other parameters for notifying the user of the unaddressed event, the content to be included in notifications, as well as logic specifying or recommending formats for presenting notification(s) [0115].); Dotan-Cohen teaches a system comprising: one or more computer processors; one or more computer readable storage media; and program instructions stored on the one or more computer readable storage media for execution by at least one of the one or more computer processors, the program instructions comprising instructions to cause the one or more computer processors to perform operations including (Dotan-Cohen e.g. Systems, methods, and computer storage media for, among other things, providing personalized notification content to a user regarding an event [0016]. Fig. 1 is an example operating environment 100 in which some embodiments of the present disclosure may be employed. Some functions may be carried out by a processor executing instructions stored in memory [0023]. Operating environment 100 includes a number of user devices 102...and a number of data sources 104. Each of the components shown in FIG. 1 may be implemented via any type of computing device, such as computing device 700, described in connection to FIG. 6 [0024].); Dotan-Cohen teaches one or more non-transitory computer readable storage media having program instructions embodied therewith, the program instructions executable by a computer to cause the computer to perform operations including: (Dotan-Cohen e.g. Embodiments of the invention may be described in the general context of computer code or machine-useable instructions, including computer-useable or computer-executable instructions, such as program modules, being executed by a computer or other machine, such as a personal data assistant, a smartphone, a tablet PC, or other handheld device [0146]. Fig. 7 computing device 700 is an example of a suitable computing environment [0145]. Computing device 700 typically includes a variety of computer-readable media. Computer-readable media can be any available media that can be accessed by computing device 700 and includes both volatile and nonvolatile media, removable and non-removable media [0148].)
Dotan-Cohen teaches analyzing, via at least one processor, a plurality of unread or unanswered communications received by a user with respect to a plurality of calendar events of the user, wherein the plurality of unread or unanswered communications are from client applications handling different types of communications; (Dotan-Cohen e.g. At step 410, an unaddressed event is identified. As described herein, an unaddressed event may refer to a communication-related event or other event that a user has not responded to, handled, or otherwise addressed. Step 410 may be carried out by an unaddressed event detector component, such as described in FIG. 2 [0106]. Unaddressed event detector 284, in general, is responsible for detecting unaddressed events such as events that may require a user response or action, or events that a user may desire responding to [0043]. Events can include voice/video calls; email; SMS text messages; instant messages; notifications; social media or social networking news items or communications (e.g. tweets, Facebook posts or "likes", invitations, news feed items);...calendar events, reminders, or notifications; meeting requests or invitations; in-application communications including game notifications and messages, etc. [0017]. Events and user responses to those events may be determined by monitoring the user data, and from this, event patterns may be determined and unaddressed events detected [0019]. Examples of user data may include…user-activity information (e.g. app usage, online activity, searches, calls), application data, contacts data, calendar and social network data, etc. [0018]. An "unaddressed event" may refer to a communication event or other event that a user has not responded to, handled, or otherwise addressed, such as a missed or uninitiated call, an unresponded-to email, unacknowledged notification or reminder, unaddressed task, unaddressed request, unaddressed social media item (e.g. a tag, tweet, newsfeed post, or similar occurrence relevant to the user), etc. ([0005] and [0017]).)
Dotan-Cohen teaches determining, via the at least one processor, relevance of the plurality of unread or unanswered communications to a particular calendar event of the plurality of calendar events; (Dotan-Cohen e.g. At step 430, an urgency level corresponding to the unaddressed event is determined. In some embodiments, the urgency level comprises an importance level or includes information corresponding to urgency of the unaddressed event and importance of the unaddressed event, and may be embodied as a score or numerical value [0109]. Embodiments of step 430 may determine an urgency level based on contextual information determined in step 420, response information from the user or other similar users, other related unaddressed events, or other user data or pattern information determined from the user data, as described in connection to urgency/importance determiner 262 in FIG. 2 [0109]. User account(s) and activity data 248 can include data regarding user emails, texts, instant messages, calls, and other communications; social network accounts and data, such as news feeds; online activity; calendars, appointments, or other user data that may have relevance for determining unaddressed events; user availability; and importance, urgency, or notification logic [0093]. In some embodiments, urgency/importance determiner 262 determines an urgency level and/or importance level (which may be embodied as a score or numerical value) using information about the unaddressed event [0060]. The confidence may be used for prioritizing notifications presented to a user. For example, where two or more notifications share a similar urgency or importance, the one that has a higher confidence may take priority (e.g., may be shown first or sooner) over the others [0063]. In one embodiment, notification logic includes priority information such that where more than one unaddressed events are pending, notifications can be prioritized based on importance or urgency and user availability for addressing the unaddressed event [0078]. For example, suppose a user has two unaddressed events: (1) a missed call from his spouse and (2) renewing the user's car insurance, which expires that day. In this example, unaddressed event (2) may be determined to be more important or urgent than unaddressed event (1), because the user's car insurance will expire that day. Thus unaddressed event (2) may be scored or ranked as having higher priority than unaddressed event (1) [0081].)
Dotan-Cohen teaches dynamically adjusting, via the at least one processor, a relevance threshold based on aspects of the particular calendar event (Dotan-Cohen e.g. A degree of urgency or importance may be determined for an unaddressed event and used for determining a value representing the level of urgency or importance. The determined level may span a range (such as 1 to 10 or "Not Urgent" to "Extremely Urgent," for example) based on a comparison to similar events and the extremes (urgent/important events and not urgent/important events) and how those events were handled [0062]. one or more thresholds may be applied for determining whether the determined urgency level value or importance level value is sufficient enough to result in presenting a notification associated with the unaddressed event. For example, a user may desire not to be bothered by notifications corresponding to unaddressed events having low importance (such as a missed call from a random salesman). Thus, in some embodiments, when the importance level is low, no action may be required in response to identifying an out-of-routine event [0062]. Moreover, the threshold values may vary based on the context and notification content, such as the recommended response for the user to address the unaddressed event. For example, if it is the middle of the night (determined from contextual information), the threshold for importance to merit presenting a user with a notification may be higher than if it is in the middle of the day and the user is otherwise available. Using urgency or importance thresholds, the thresholds may be determined based on predetermined rules, user history, data from other users, or user preferences or settings [0062]. A user can specify notification settings based on the category of the unaddressed event, the level of urgency or importance (such as by specifying a threshold, as described previously), availability, or other contextual information [0082].)
Dotan-Cohen teaches determining, via the at least one processor, that the plurality of unread or unanswered communications satisfy the relevance threshold; (Dotan-Cohen e.g. One or more thresholds may be applied for determining whether the determined urgency level value or importance level value is sufficient enough to result in presenting a notification associated with the unaddressed event [0062]. For example, each time Bill's wife called (or each time she calls within a given timeframe), a determined urgency associated with the missed calls from his wife may be increased. If the urgency is high enough, Bill may be notified of the unaddressed event (i.e., a communication from his wife) during the meeting. For example, where she calls three times and also sends a text message such as "Bill, please call me ASAP. It's an emergency" then an urgency level may be updated, and if it is great enough (which may be determined by a threshold as described herein), then Bill will be presented with a notification during the meeting ([0138]-[0139]).)
Dotan-Cohen teaches determining, via the at least one processor, a priority value for the plurality of unread or unanswered communications based on the relevance and an urgency of the plurality of unread or unanswered communications; (Dotan-Cohen e.g. Urgency/importance determiner 262, in general, is responsible for determining an importance level and/or urgency level for an unaddressed event. An importance level can indicate how important or imperative it is that a user addresses an event, while an urgency level may indicate how soon the event should be addressed. Some embodiments of notification engine 260 may determine urgency, importance, or both [0059]. In some embodiments, urgency/importance determiner 262 determines an urgency level and/or importance level (which may be embodied as a score or numerical value) using information about the unaddressed event [0060]. A degree of urgency or importance may be determined for an unaddressed event and used for determining a value representing the level of urgency or importance. In this way, the determined level may span a range (such as 1 to 10 or "Not Urgent" to "Extremely Urgent," for example) based on a comparison to similar events and the extremes (urgent/important events and not urgent/important events) and how those events were handled [0062]. An urgency level or importance level has an associated probability or confidence indicating a likelihood of the determined urgency or importance. The confidence may be determined based on the amount of contextual information potentially indicating urgency or importance and/or the magnitude (or weight) associated with specific pieces of contextual information [0063]. The confidence may be used for prioritizing notifications presented to a user. For example, where two or more notifications share a similar urgency or importance, the one that has a higher confidence may take priority (e.g., may be shown first or sooner) over the others [0063]. Information indicating the determined priority or ranking may be included in the notification logic. Moreover, in an embodiment, based on the notification logic, pending or potential notifications may be scored relative to other pending or potential notifications based on the importance or urgency of their corresponding unaddressed events [0079]. The score may comprise a weighted rank of each notification, which may be scored on the same scale and used for assigning a priority [0079]. In some embodiments, the pending or potential notifications may be logically organized in queue based on a weighted ranking or score [0079].)
Dotan-Cohen teaches identifying one or more high-priority communications in the plurality of unread or unanswered communications based on the priority value for the plurality of unread or unanswered communications with respect to the particular calendar event; (Dotan-Cohen e.g. An urgency level or importance level has an associated probability or confidence indicating a likelihood of the determined urgency or importance. The confidence may be determined based on the amount of contextual information potentially indicating urgency or importance and/or the magnitude (or weight) associated with specific pieces of contextual information [0063]. The confidence may be used for prioritizing notifications presented to a user. For example, where two or more notifications share a similar urgency or importance, the one that has a higher confidence may take priority (e.g., may be shown first or sooner) over the others [0063]. In one embodiment, notification logic includes priority information such that where more than one unaddressed events are pending, notifications can be prioritized based on importance or urgency and user availability for addressing the unaddressed event [0078].)
Dotan-Cohen teaches generating, via the at least one processor, an alert window including an alert regarding the one or more high-priority communications; and (Dotan-Cohen e.g. The formats of notifications specified by notification content (i.e., how notification(s) may be provided to the user) and the timing of the notification presentation may be based on context information associated with the unaddressed event including, for example, the importance or urgency [0004]. Notification content may be generated based on the predicted availability, determined likely importance of the unaddressed event, or other contextual information, and may further include supplemental content for assisting the user in addressing the unaddressed event [0007]. The availability, urgency, and/or importance may be used for determining logic and other parameters associated with providing notification content to a user, such as where or when to provide notification(s); how or in what format(s) (e.g., as an alarm, pop-up, notification bug, spoken suggestion, etc.), or with what look(s) or characteristics the notification content should be provided; and what should the notification content include (including how much content should be included and how much supplemental content should be included) [0066]. Presentation component 218 manages the presentation of notification content to a user across multiple user devices associated with that user [0085]. Presentation component 218 generates user interface features associated with a notification. Such features can include interface elements (such as graphics buttons, sliders, menus, audio prompts, alerts, alarms, vibrations, pop-up windows, notification-bar or status-bar items, in-app notifications, or other similar features for interfacing with a user), queries, and prompts [0086].)
Dotan-Cohen does not explicitly teach, however, Horvitz teaches overlaying, via the at least one processor, the alert window over a window providing information for the particular calendar event displayed on a user device of the user, wherein the alert window is overlayed using a graphical indicator to visually distinguish the alert window from the window providing information for the particular calendar event. (Horvitz e.g. The present invention relates to a system and method to facilitate providing computer users with efficient access to electronic notifications while minimizing disruption in the context of ongoing tasks. A notification system provides visual information heralds that provide summarizations of notifications to users (Abstract). A messaging system such as a prioritization system or notification system, for example, operates in conjunction with the information controller in order to prioritize messages and thus further control operations therein (pg. 6 lines 5-9). Visual heralds are dynamically rendered in accordance with the present invention and can be associated with a prioritized messaging system that assigns an urgency value to incoming messages (pg. 3 lines 27-29). One or more dynamic controls guide various aspects of the visual herald in order to direct how and when the information is presented to the user. Such controls include dynamic positioning of the herald, dynamic sizing controls, dynamic rendering controls such as controlling shapes, colors and dimensions of the herald, dynamic audio controls, dynamic appearance controls (e.g., fading in/fading out) and/or other controls such as timing of how long information is presented to the user (pgs. 3-4 lines 34-6). Attention-sensitive heralds can also appear in lower, right-hand side of an active window (or other locations) and then inch up along the right hand edge of a window toward the middle of the window linearly (or some other function) with the increasing importance of the message (col. 10 lines 4-7). Figs. 11-18 illustrate how a herald can come into the focus of attention in a desktop setting having one or more applications active therein (pg. 14 lines 14-17). The output of a system that moves a herald up towards the height of the position of a current interaction, along the right-hand edge of the active window can be modified to ensure that the herald will not be placed in a position that will overlay the position where a user is currently typing, e.g., a "repellent force field" can be positioned over a user's current work position to ensure that there will not be obfuscation. Thus, a herald can inch up to be as close as possible to the user but avoid being overlayed in a disruptive position (pg. 15 lines 11-17). Figs. 7-8 illustrates an exemplary workspace, notification herald, and notification herald movement in accordance with an aspect of the present invention (pg. 5 lines 1-2).)
The Examiner submits that before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Dotan-Cohen’s formats of notification (e.g. pop-up windows) to include overlaying the alert window over a window providing information for the particular event displayed on a user device using a graphical indicator to visually distinguish the alert window from the window providing the particular calendar event as taught by Horvitz in order to provide users with tools and designs that allow users to have access to awareness of potentially important notifications at minimal cognitive load, and minimal overall disruption (Horvitz e.g. pg. 3 lines 19-21).
As per claims 2 (Original), 10 (Currently Amended), and 18 (Currently Amended), Dotan-Cohen in view of Horvitz teach the method of claim 1, further comprising, the system of claim 9, wherein the program instructions further comprise instructions to cause the one or more computer processors to perform further operations, and the one or more non-transitory computer readable storage media of claim 17, Dotan-Cohen teaches wherein the program instructions further cause the computer to perform further operations including determining the urgency based on a difference between a scheduled time of the particular calendar event and a current time. (Dotan-Cohen e.g. An unaddressed event may become more urgent as a deadline approaches, and the importance level and/or urgency level may be updated based on changes detected in contextual information, current user data, the user's response, newly detected user patterns, or new unaddressed events that are determined to be related to an already outstanding event [0059]. Events can include voice/video calls; email; SMS text messages; instant messages; notifications; social media or social networking news items or communications (e.g. tweets, Facebook posts or "likes", invitations, news feed items);...calendar events, reminders, or notifications; meeting requests or invitations; etc. [0017]. Where the unaddressed event is associated with a deadline, the urgency level corresponding to the unaddressed event may increase as the deadline approaches [0111].)
As per claims 3, 11, and 19 (Currently Amended), Dotan-Cohen in view of Horvitz teach the method of claim 1, further comprising; the system of claim 9, wherein the program instructions further comprise instructions to cause the one or more computer processors to perform further operations including; and the one or more non-transitory computer readable storage media of claim 17, Dotan-Cohen teaches wherein the program instructions further cause the computer to perform further operations including determining the relevance based on one or more of: an identity of a sender of the plurality of unread or unanswered communications, an identity of an organizer or required participant of the particular calendar event, a comparison of a topic of the particular calendar event to a title of the plurality of unread or unanswered communications, and a matching keyword that is present in both the plurality of unread or unanswered communications and a description or title of the particular calendar event. (Dotan-Cohen e.g. Embodiments may determine an event (such as a communication event, a task, or a news event or social media event relevant to the user) that is missed or otherwise unaddressed by a user; for example, an email from the user's boss to which the user has not replied or a user-initiated call to the user's mother that has not occurred, based on a determined user pattern of when or where the user typically calls his mother ([0004] and [0016]). Some communication events may be associated with an entity (such as a contact or business, including in some instances the user himself or herself) or with a class of entities (such as close friends, work colleagues, boss, family, business establishments visited by the user, etc.) [0017]. Embodiments of step 430 may determine an urgency level based on contextual information determined in step 420 [0109]. Step 420 may be carried out by a contextual information extractor, such as described in FIG. 2 [0108]. Some embodiments of contextual information extractor 286 determine contextual information related to an event, contact-entity (or entities, such as in the case of a group email), user activity surrounding the event, and current user activity. This may include context features such as location data; time, day, and/or date; number and/or frequency of communications; keywords in the communication (which may be used for determining importance or urgency ); contextual information about the contacting entity (such as the entity identity, relation with the user, location of the contacting entity if determinable, frequency or level of previous contact with the user); etc. [0053]. For example, a missed call from a boss following an unresponded-to email may indicate a higher urgency level for responding to the email [0059].)
As per claims 4, 12, and 20 (Currently Amended), Dotan-Cohen in view of Horvitz teach the method of claim 1, the system of claim 9, and the one or more non-transitory computer readable storage media of claim 17, Dotan-Cohen teaches wherein the client applications include two or more from a group of: a telephony client, an e-mail client, a chat client, and a short messaging service client. (Dotan-Cohen e.g. Unaddressed event detector 284, in general, is responsible for detecting unaddressed events such as events that may require a user response or action, or events that a user may desire responding to [0043]. Events can include voice/video calls; email; SMS text messages; instant messages; notifications; social media or social networking news items or communications (e.g. tweets, Facebook posts or "likes", invitations, news feed items);...calendar events, reminders, or notifications; meeting requests or invitations; in-application communications including game notifications and messages, etc. [0017]. Events and user responses to those events may be determined by monitoring the user data, and from this, event patterns may be determined and unaddressed events detected [0019]. Examples of user data may include…user-activity information (e.g. app usage, online activity, searches, calls), application data, contacts data, calendar and social network data, etc. [0018].)
As per claims 5 and 13 (Currently Amended), Dotan-Cohen in view of Horvitz teach the method of claim 1 and the system of claim 9, Dotan-Cohen teaches wherein the plurality of unread or unanswered communications comprise one or more of: a missed telephone call, a transcribed voicemail call, an e-mail, a short messaging service message, and a chat message. (Dotan-Cohen e.g. Embodiments may determine an event (such as a communication event, a task, or a news event or social media event relevant to the user) that is missed or otherwise unaddressed by a user [0004]. An "unaddressed event" may refer to a communication event or other event that a user has not responded to, handled, or otherwise addressed, such as a missed or uninitiated call, an unresponded-to email, unacknowledged notification or reminder, unaddressed task, unaddressed request, unaddressed social media item (e.g. a tag, tweet, newsfeed post, or similar occurrence relevant to the user), etc. ([0005] and [0017]))
As per claims 6 and 14 (Currently Amended), Dotan-Cohen in view of Horvitz teach the method of claim 1 and the system of claim 9, Dotan-Cohen teaches wherein the priority value is determined by separately-weighted relevance values and urgency values for each of the plurality of unread or unanswered communications. (Dotan-Cohen e.g. Urgency/importance determiner 262, in general, is responsible for determining an importance level and/or urgency level for an unaddressed event. An importance level can indicate how important or imperative it is that a user addresses an event, while an urgency level may indicate how soon the event should be addressed. Some embodiments of notification engine 260 may determine urgency, importance, or both [0059]. In some embodiments, urgency/importance determiner 262 determines an urgency level and/or importance level (which may be embodied as a score or numerical value) using information about the unaddressed event [0060]. A degree of urgency or importance may be determined for an unaddressed event and used for determining a value representing the level of urgency or importance. In this way, the determined level may span a range (such as 1 to 10 or "Not Urgent" to "Extremely Urgent," for example) based on a comparison to similar events and the extremes (urgent/important events and not urgent/important events) and how those events were handled [0062]. An urgency level or importance level has an associated probability or confidence indicating a likelihood of the determined urgency or importance. The confidence may be determined based on the amount of contextual information potentially indicating urgency or importance and/or the magnitude (or weight) associated with specific pieces of contextual information [0063]. The confidence may be used for prioritizing notifications presented to a user. For example, where two or more notifications share a similar urgency or importance, the one that has a higher confidence may take priority (e.g., may be shown first or sooner) over the others [0063]. Information indicating the determined priority or ranking may be included in the notification logic. Moreover, in an embodiment, based on the notification logic, pending or potential notifications may be scored relative to other pending or potential notifications based on the importance or urgency of their corresponding unaddressed events [0079]. The score may comprise a weighted rank of each notification, which may be scored on the same scale and used for assigning a priority [0079]. In some embodiments, the pending or potential notifications may be logically organized in queue based on a weighted ranking or score [0079].)
As per claims 7 and 15 (Currently Amended), Dotan-Cohen in view of Horvitz teach the method of claim 1 and the system of claim 9, Dotan-Cohen teaches wherein the alert window modifies an order of the plurality of unread or unanswered communications to prioritize the one or more high-priority communications. (Dotan-Cohen e.g. The formats of notifications specified by notification content (i.e., how notification(s) may be provided to the user) and the timing of the notification presentation may be based on context information associated with the unaddressed event including, for example, the importance or urgency [0004]. In some embodiments, the pending or potential notifications may be logically organized in queue based on a weighted ranking or score. Further, upon changes occurring (such as new notifications or new unaddressed events, dismissed notifications (or addressed events corresponding to the notifications), new contextual information or other user data indicating changes in user availability or changes in urgency or importance, then the potential or pending notifications may be rescored, re-ranked, or otherwise reprioritized, in some embodiments. In some embodiments, notification logic is updated or otherwise generated to reflect the priority [0079]. Presentation component 218 generates user interface features associated with a notification. Such features can include interface elements (such as graphics buttons, sliders, menus, audio prompts, alerts, alarms, vibrations, pop-up windows, notification-bar or status-bar items, in-app notifications, or other similar features for interfacing with a user), queries, and prompts [0086].)
As per claims 8 and 16 (Currently Amended), Dotan-Cohen in view of Horvitz teach the method of claim 1 and the system of claim 9, Dotan-Cohen teaches further comprising performing one or more of: providing an audio alert, and providing a haptic alert. (Dotan-Cohen e.g. Presentation component 218 manages the presentation of notification content to a user across multiple user devices associated with that user [0085]. Presentation component 218 generates user interface features associated with a notification. Such features can include interface elements (such as graphics buttons, sliders, menus, audio prompts, alerts, alarms, vibrations, pop-up windows, notification-bar or status-bar items, in-app notifications, or other similar features for interfacing with a user), queries, and prompts [0086]. FIG. 3 is an example of a notification generated based on an unaddressed event is described. In this example, user interface 300 comprises a graphical user interface on a user device, such as a smartphone. Example user interface 300 depicts one example of a notification 350 presented to a user in accordance with an embodiment of the invention. The example notification includes a notification message 310 for reminding the user to renew her car insurance [0095].)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure include Nolterieke et al. (US 2012/0311473 A1) “Alert Event Notification”.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 Ayanna Minor whose telephone number is (571)272-3605. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jerry O'Connor can be reached at 571-272-6787. 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.
/A.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3624
/Jerry