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 .
This is a Final Office Action in response to the amendment filed on 05/19/2025.
Claims 1, 8 and 15 are amended. Claims 2, 4, 9, 11, 16 and 18 are canceled. Claims 1, 3, 5-8, 10, 12-15, 17 and 19-20 are presented for examination, with claims 1, 8 and 15 being independent.
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The rejection to claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph is withdrawn in view of the amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Applicant’s argument with regard to rejection of claims 1, 3, 5-8, 10, 12-15, 17 and 19-20 under 35 U.S.C. 101 is acknowledged. However, Examiner is not persuaded. Based upon the consideration of claim 1 and all of the relevant factors with respect to the claim as a whole, it is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) without significantly more. There are no additional limitations recited beyond the judicial exception itself that integrate the exception into a practical application. More particularly, the claim does not recite: (i) an improvement to the functionality of a computer or other technology or technical field (see MPEP §2106.05(a)); (ii) a “particular machine” to apply or use the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(b)); (iii) a particular transformation of an article to a different thing or state (see MPEP §2106.05(c)); or (iv) any other meaningful limitation (see MPEP §2106.05(e)). See also Guidance, 84 FED. Reg. at 55.
The claim is broadly written. Claim 1, as an exemplary claims is directed to a method for displaying relevant data in reordered list. Wherein, a reordered data list is made as to compare the second set of second search result to the first set of first search results to identify common data to increase relevance score for common data; then a reordered data list of the results can be prioritized and displayed based on the relevance score. The claim does not include limitations that are “significantly more” than the abstract idea because the claims do not include an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. The claim fails to recite specific limitations (or a combination of limitations) that are NOT well-understood, routine, and conventional. The steps of: performing …, comparing …, increasing …; are conventional steps describe an abstract idea, they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and thus do not add significantly more to the claimed invention. In particular, the claim recites additional element, displaying …, receiving …; the limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and thus do not add significantly more to the claimed invention. Claim does not include any structure and/or a series of steps as to how a first primary key and a second primary key are obtained. The amendment recites: user device; a graphical user interface; they are generic computer elements. The generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea. Thus, the limitation does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and thus do not add significantly more to the claimed invention.
Viewed as a whole, the additional claim element does not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 8 and 15 are essentially the same as claims 1 except that claims 8 and 15 are directed to a manufacture and a machine. However, performing the same steps recited in claim 1.
See also, MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).III.C
“Performing a mental process on a generic computer. An example of a case identifying a mental process performed on a generic computer as an abstract idea is Voter Verified, Inc. v. Election Systems & Software, LLC, 887 F.3d 1376, 1385, 126 USPQ2d 1498, 1504 (Fed. Cir. 2018). In this case, the Federal Circuit relied upon the specification in explaining that the claimed steps of voting, verifying the vote, and submitting the vote for tabulation are "human cognitive actions" that humans have performed for hundreds of years. The claims therefore recited an abstract idea, despite the fact that the claimed voting steps were performed on a computer. 887 F.3d at 1385, 126 USPQ2d at 1504. Another example is Versata, in which the patentee claimed a system and method for determining a price of a product offered to a purchasing organization that was implemented using general purpose computer hardware. 793 F.3d at 1312-13, 1331, 115 USPQ2d at 1685, 1699. The Federal Circuit acknowledged that the claims were performed on a generic computer, but still described the claims as "directed to the abstract idea of determining a price, using organizational and product group hierarchies, in the same way that the claims in Alice were directed to the abstract idea of intermediated settlement, and the claims in Bilski were directed to the abstract idea of risk hedging." 793 F.3d at 1333; 115 USPQ2d at 1700-01..”
See MPEP 2111 for when and to what extent the specification can be read into claims.
For the above reasons, the Examiner maintains the rejections to claims under 35 U.S.C 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Applicant’s arguments with respect to amended claim 1 have been considered. New ground of rejection is provided based on the filed amendment.
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, 3, 5-8, 10, 12-15, 17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Independent claims 1, 8 and 15
Step 1: Claim 1 recites “A method for …”; the claim recites a series of steps and therefore is process. Claim 8 recites “A non-transitory, computer-readable medium ….”; therefore, the claim is a manufacture. Claim 8 recites “A user device …”; therefore the claim is a machine.
Independent claims 1, 8 and 15 recite limitations of:
in repose to a notification of an upcoming meeting involving a user and a plurality of participants, performing (a mental step that a use performs using a generic tool) a first search of electronic documents by an application installed on the user device to obtain a first set of results;
displaying (insignificant extra-solution activity), on a graphical user interface (GUI) of the user device, a first interactive card comprising a first list of content items from the first set of results of in the first search, wherein the first list of content items is ordered based on a relevance score of each content item to the upcoming meeting;
receiving (insignificant extra-solution data gathering), through the GUI, a selection to open a content item in the first list of content items; and
in response to the selection to open the content item, automatically executing the steps of:
performing (a mental step that a use performs using a generic tool) a second search of the electronic documents for content items related to the selected content item to obtain a second of results;
comparing (generic mathematical functions) the second set of results of the second search to the first set of results of the first search to identify content items that are common to both results;
increasing (a mental step that a use performs using a generic tool) the relevance score of one or more content items of the first set of results displayed in the first interactive card that have been identified as the content items that are common to both results; and
displaying (insignificant extra-solution activity) a second interactive card comprising a second list of content items that is ordered based on the relevance score, the second list of content items including the one or more content items having the increased relevance score, wherein the second interactive card is displayed, on the GUI, in a stack of interactive cards including the first interactive card, the stack of cards being ordered based on a content type of each interactive card in the stack.
Step 2A Prong One: The limitations of: performing a first search …, performing a second search …; increasing …; are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with the aid of pen and paper, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is , other than reciting in claims 1, 8 and 15, a user device, a graphical user interface (GUI), a non-transitory computer-readable medium, a memory storage, a hardware-based processor; nothing in the claims elements preclude the step from practically being performed in a human mind. Note that the limitations are done by the generically recited computer components under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion).
The limitations: comparing …; is mathematical concept. The courts have found that mathematical relationships fall within the judicial exceptions, grouping of abstract ideas.
Step 2A Prong Two: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Claims 1, 8 and 15 recite the additional elements, displaying … a fist interactive card, displaying … the second interactive card …; these limitations amount to presentation of collected data (MPEP 2106.05(g)); receiving …; this limitation amounts to data gathering (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements; these limitations amount to a data gathering step and a mere generic presentation of collected and analyzed data which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Further, these additional limitations are recited as being performed by: a user device, a graphical user interface (GUI), a non-transitory computer-readable medium, a memory storage, a hardware-based processor, provide nothing more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). MPEP 2106.05(f) provides the following considerations for determining whether a claim simply recites a judicial exception with the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer: (1) whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished; (2) whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process; and (3) the particularity or generality of the application of the judicial exception.
Step 2B: The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The limitation “displaying … a fist interactive card; receiving …; and, displaying … the second interactive card …; are recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine , and conventional activities when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv) analyzing and/or presenting data, Versata Dev. Group Inc....
As explained with respect to Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements performing by: a user device, a graphical user interface (GUI), a non-transitory computer-readable medium, a memory storage, a hardware-based processor, are at best mere instructions to “apply” the abstract ideas, which cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, e.g., a claim describing how the abstract idea of hedging could be used in the commodities and energy markets, as discussed in Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 595, 95 USPQ2d 1001, 1010 (2010) or a claim limiting the use of a mathematical formula to the petrochemical and oil-refining fields, as discussed in Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 588-90, 198 USPQ 193, 197-98 (1978) (MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
Since, claims 1, 8 and 15 are directed to abstract ideas; thus, the claims are not patent eligible.
Claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-20
The limitations as recited in claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-20 are simply describe the concepts of displaying relevant data in reordered list. The claims do not include additional element(s) that is sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions. The claims cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-20 are directed to abstract ideas and are not patent eligible. Analysis of the dependent claims are shown below.
Dependent claim 3 recites the limitation, in response to a second selection of a content item from the first or second interactive card, opening the selected content item in the application on the user device; this limitation amounts to data analyzing (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Dependent claim 5 recites the limitation, wherein the first interactive card is closable through interaction with the GUI; the limitation is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion).
Dependent claim 6 recites the limitation, wherein the first and second searches include searches of metadata associated with the content items; the limitation is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion).
Dependent claim 7 recites the limitation, wherein the first interactive card is closable by using a swipe gesture; this limitation is a processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion).
Claims 10, 12-14 recite a non-transitory, computer-readable medium comprising steps are similar to claims 3 and 5-7. Therefore, claims 10, 12-14 are rejected by the same reasons as discussed in claims 3 and 5-7.
Claims 17 and 19-20 recite a non-transitory, computer-readable medium comprising steps are similar to claims 3, 5-6. Therefore, claims 17 and 19-20 are rejected by the same reasons as discussed in claims 3, 5-6.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-4, 6, 8-11, 13, 15-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sarrazin et al., US 2015/0088927 (hereinafter “Sarrazin”), in view of in view of Wolf et al., US 2008/0162433 (hereinafter Wolf), and further in view of Greenberg et al., US 2016/0196244 (hereinafter Greenberg).
Regarding claim 1, Sarrazin discloses, A method for displaying relevant content on a user device, comprising:
in repose to a notification of an upcoming meeting involving a user and a plurality of participants, performing a first search of electronic documents by an application installed on the user device to obtain a first set of results (e.g. Calendar applications on electronic devices, such as mobile devices and computers, are used to schedule and organize appointments, events, meetings [as a notification of an upcoming meeting], and activities. A user views a calendar event using a calendar application. A search is performed for files in relation to the calendar event [as a first search] and files suggested to be relevant are displayed on the electronic device [as a first set of results], Sarrazin: [0031]-[0036], and Fig. 6);
displaying, on a graphical user interface (GUI) of the user device, a first interactive card comprising a first list of content items from the first set of results the first search (e.g. an example embodiment of a graphical user interface (GUI) 226 of a calendar event is shown [as a first list of content items from the first set of results], Sarrazin Figs. 6-7, [0065]-[0066] and [0073]),
receiving, through the GUI, a selection to open a content item in the first list of content items (e.g. A user can select a suggested file for further viewing. For example, if the file is an email, selecting the suggested email will launch an email application to view the email. In another example embodiment, if the file is a text document, selecting the suggested text document will launch a document application to view the document. In this way, a user can conveniently retrieve and view suggested information in relation to the calendar event. The selections are shown in GUI, e.g. FIG. 6, an example embodiment of a graphical user interface (GUI) 226 of a calendar event is shown, Sarrazin: [0036] and fig. 6); and
in response to the selection to open the content item , automatically executing the steps of:
performing a second search of the electronic documents for content items related to the selected content item to obtain a second set of results (e.g. In an example embodiment, device 100 may also search for emails with names similar to the attendee names (e.g. synonyms of the attendee names) in the email fields [as performing a second search]. For example, if an attendee name is "Rob Smith", device 100 may also search for emails including "Robert Smith" in the email fields.) At block 302, if there is a match of one or more emails, then those one or more emails are considered suggestions [as a second set of search results], Sarrazin: [0088] and Figs. 10-17);
increasing the relevance score of one or more content items of the first set of results displayed in the first interactive card that have been identified as the content items that are common to both results (e.g. the confidence value is increased if the words in the calendar event subject match the words in the email subject. In other words, the subject titles of a suggested email and a calendar event are the same [as common to both results], or near the same. At block 322, the confidence value is increased if the order of the matching words in the email is in the same order as the words in the calendar event, Sarrazin: [0092] and Figs. 10-17); and
displaying a second interactive card comprising a second list of content items that is ordered based on the relevance score, the second list of content items including the one or more content items having the increased relevance score (e.g. The confidence value associated with each suggested email can be used to order the search results. Emails with the highest confidence value will be displayed at the top of the list, and the other suggested emails will be displayed in descending order, Sarrazin: [0099]), wherein the second interactive card is displayed, on the GUI (see Sarrazin: Fig. 6-7),
Sarrazin does not directly or explicitly disclose:
comparing the second set of results of the second search to the first set of results of the first search to identify content items that are common to both results;
Wolf teaches:
comparing the second set of results of the second search to the first set of results of the first search to identify content items that are common to both results (e.g. The commonality criteria 116 may include criteria or rules that may be used to determine how to select, determine and/or extract ideas, phrases, words, content or other subject matter common among or associated with the search results, Wolf: [0023]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify systems and methods for establishing and using a personal linking graph as discloses by Sarrazin to include A commonality detector as taught by Wolf to provide the common subject matter in association with search results.
Sarrazin in view of Wolf does not directly or explicitly disclose:
the second interactive card is displayed, in a stack of interactive cards including the first interactive card, the stack of cards being ordered based on a content type of each interactive card in the stack.
Greenberg teaches:
the second interactive card is displayed, in a stack of interactive cards including the first interactive card, the stack of cards being ordered based on a content type of each interactive card in the stack (e.g. As diagrammatically illustrated in FIG. 5A, a wrap package 10 includes a set of one or more cards 14. Each card 14 may contain one or more components 16 that serve as containers for content objects 17. A gallery card provides the ability to present an expanded amount of content in a vertically stacked orientation, Greenberg: [0100], [0135] and Fig. 5A-5B).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify systems and methods for establishing and using a personal linking graph as discloses by Sarrazin in view of Wolf to include card based package for distributing electronic media and services as taught by Greenberg to provide real-time features and support e-commerce related services.
Regarding claim 3, Sarrazin further discloses, in response to a second selection of a content item from the first or second interactive card, opening the selected content item in the application on the user device (e.g. When a user selects a suggested email or file, the relevant application is launched to enable the user to view the suggested email or file. The confidence value associated with each suggested email can be used to order the search results. Emails with the highest confidence value will be displayed at the top of the list, and the other suggested emails will be displayed in descending order, Sarrazin [0076] and [0099]).
Regarding claim 6, Sarrazin further discloses, wherein the first and second searches include searches of metadata associated with the content items (e.g. The information displayed in association with the names of the files includes an icon specifying the file type and a date on which the file was last modified, or created, Sarrazin: [0076]).
Claims 8, 10 and 13 recite a non-transitory, computer-readable medium comprising steps are similar to claims 1, 3 and 6. Therefore, claims 8, 10 and 13 are rejected by the same reasons as discussed in claims 1, 3 and 6.
Claims 15, 17 and 20 recite a non-transitory, computer-readable medium comprising steps are similar to claims 1, 3 and 6. Therefore, claims 15, 17 and 20 are rejected by the same reasons as discussed in claims 1, 3 and 6.
Claims 5, 7, 12, 14 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sarrazin, in view of Wolf and Greenberg, and further in view of Sirpal et al., US 9,182,788 (hereinafter “Sirpal”).
Sarrazin does not directly of explicitly disclose claims 5, 7, 12, 14 and 19 .
Regarding claim 5, Sirpal teaches, wherein the first interactive card is closable through interaction with the GUI (e.g. The application representations 1224, 1228, 1232, 1236, 1240, and 1244 are thumbnails of applications currently open. These application representations may be described as cards hereinafter. Each card 1224, 1228, 1232, 1236, 1240, and 1244 can include a user selectable icon 1248 that allows the user to close the application by selecting the icon 1248, Sirpal: Fig. 12B and Figs. 14-18B).
Regarding claim 7, Sirpal teaches, wherein the first interactive card is closable by using a swipe gesture (e.g. Each card 1224, 1228, 1232, 1236, 1240, and 1244 can include a user selectable icon 1248 that allows the user to close the application by selecting the icon 1248, Sirpal: Fig. 12B and Figs. 14-18B).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify systems and methods for establishing and using a personal linking graph as disclosed by Sarrazin in view of Wolf and Greenberg to include methods and devices for presenting representations of open windows in a device as taught by Sirpal to provide for enhanced power and/or versatility compared to conventional single display handheld computing devices.
Claims 12, 14 and 19 are similar to subject matter of claims 5 and 7. Therefore, claims 12, 14 and 19 are rejected by the same reason as indicated in claims 5 and 7.
Conclusion
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 CECILE H VO whose telephone number is (571)270-3031. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri (9AM-5PM).
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, Kavita Stanley can be reached at (571) 272-8352. 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.
/CECILE H VO/Examiner, Art Unit 2153 9/13/2025
/KAVITA STANLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2153