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 .
Detailed Action
This is a first final Office Action for application 18/427,592, in response to arguments and amendments filed on 10/01/2025. Claims 1, 3, 8, 10, 15 and 17 are currently amended. Claims 2, 9 and 16 are cancelled. Claims 1, 8, and 15 are pending and examined below.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 10/01/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/01/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
First, applicant argues that reference art Horvitz’s cited paragraphs does not teach claim 1 language “storing, in the database schema, the initial part and the plurality of replies of the conversation, each comprising: a reference to an entity type identifying a class of content item and an entity identifier identifying an instance of the content item;” anywhere in reference art Horovitz. Applicant notes that Horovitz talks about rendering options and schema updates, but contends that these are not disclosures of this new claim language.
However, while Examiner agrees that these cited portions of Horovitz do not teach this claim language, previously uncited Pars. [0182-4] and Fig. 5, disclose that each information source (#502) can contain a source preference store (#503) that could broadly reasonably be interpreted to be a stored “entity identifier” and can also include source preferences and main/global preferences which could similarly be broadly reasonably interpreted to mean “class” as required by new claim 1 language. Therefore, argument is unpersuasive.
Applicant further argues that because the above claim language is not taught, new claim 1 language “an embedded renderable data object comprising structured data specific to the entity type of the initial part or reply;
and executable code configured to use the entity type and the entity identifier to infer a model type for rendering the initial part or reply in a user interface; “ is consequently also not taught.
However, as explained above, the cited claim language is taught in a previously uncited portion of the cited Horovitz reference. The rest of the claim language is taught as shown below. Therefore, argument is also unpersuasive.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-8, 11-15 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horvitz et al. (US Pub. 2003/0131142) in view of Robertson et al. (US Pat. 10,810,654).
Regarding claim 1, Horvitz teaches
A method comprising: generating, by a processing device, a database schema to store an initial part of a conversation and a plurality of replies of the conversation, the initial part is sourced from a data source and the plurality of replies of the conversation is sourced from a plurality of other data sources; (Fig. 5; Par. [0012, 189, 193, 267-8] data is added so that the platform knows when and where (i.e. the last reply) a user is in or has last been in a conversation, and the information agent service (#504) uses a context schema (i.e. database schema; #526) that may contain one or more parts of the various schemas of the context sources (i.e. plurality of other sources; #522))
receiving, from a client device, a request to provide the conversation; (Figs. 2, 4; Par. [0006, 37, 42, 49, 65] user device (i.e. client device) can issue a query for data stored in the addressable data store (#206))
fetching the database schema from a single data source; and (Figs. 2, 4; Par. [0006, 37, 42, 49, 65] user device can issue a query for data stored in the addressable data store (i.e. a single data source; #206))
generating a first data loader and a second data loader that are respectively associated with the first data type and the second data type, the first data loader is to fetch datasets corresponding to the first data type and the second data loader is to fetch datasets corresponding to the second data type; (Par. [0158, 174-5] the information agent service (#504) receives data from a plurality of information sources (#502), including the notification schema (i.e. first, second, etc. data loader; #506))
reducing a number of queries to fetch the first set of data and the second set of data to a reduced number of queries by executing the first data loader in a first thread of an operating system and the second data loader in a second thread of the operating system; (Par. [0045-7, 97] the system can load data from different social media APIs in parallel)
fetching, within the reduced number of queries, the first set of data based on the first data loader and the second set of data based on the second data loader; and (Par. [0158, 174-5] the information agent service (#504) receives (i.e. fetches) data from a plurality of information sources (#502), including the notification schema (#506))
storing, in the database schema, the initial part and the plurality of replies of the conversation, each comprising: a reference to an entity type identifying a class of content item and an entity identifier identifying an instance of the content item; (Fig. 5; Par. [0182-4] each information source (#502) contains a source preference store (i.e. stored entity identifier; #503) which can include source preferences and main/global preferences (i.e. class; #514))
an embedded renderable data object comprising structured data specific to the entity type of the initial part or reply; (Par. [00180] set of information includes data formatted according to the user preferences schema (i.e. structured data specific to the entity type; #516))
and executable code configured to use the entity type and the entity identifier to infer a model type for rendering the initial part or reply in a user interface; (Fig. 4; Par. [0048-9] standard (#408) and service specific methods (#410) are used for executing user requests)
and transmitting the database schema to the client device for displaying, in an application executing on the client device, the initial part of the conversation and the plurality of replies of the conversation. (Par. [0057, 163] the device can keep a locally-stored schema that is updated (i.e. transmitted to the client device) by the schema update service, which also includes rendering (i.e. display) options)
Horvitz does not explicitly teach
determining, based on the database schema, that a first set of data is associated with a first data type and a second set of data is associated with a second data type
However, from the same field, Robertson teaches
determining, based on the database schema, that a first set of data is associated with a first data type and a second set of data is associated with a second data type; (Fig. 7; Col. 7 [Line 51] – Col. 8 [Line 11] a source schema for a master source (i.e. containing various sets of data) is mapped to a first and second target schema (i.e. first data type and second data type) at step #206)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the attribute mapping between schemas of Robertson into the information agent service of Horvitz. The motivation for this combination would have been to make it easier to provide a system for automatic between different schemas as explained in Roberson (Col. 2 [Lines 6-11]).
Regarding claim 4, Horvitz and Robertson teach claim 1 as shown above, and Horvitz further teaches
The method of claim 1, further comprising: identifying a reply in the conversation as being a last reply; and (Fig. 5; Par. [0012, 267-8] data is added so that the platform knows when and where (i.e. the last reply) a user is in or has last been in a conversation)
generating a second database schema to indicate the reply as being the last reply. (Fig. 5; Par. [0012, 267-8] data is added so that the platform knows when and where (i.e. the last reply) a user is in or has last been in a conversation)
Regarding claim 5, Horvitz and Robertson teach claim 4 as shown above, and Horvitz further teaches
The method of claim 4, further comprising: fetching, using the second database schema, the initial part of the conversation and the plurality of replies of the conversation using a single query. (Fig. 5; Par. [0174-5] the information agent (#504) is notified as to how and when to send notifications to a user device, including large amounts of data (e.g. an email with attachments))
Regarding claim 6, Horvitz and Robertson teach claim 4 as shown above, and Horvitz further teaches
The method of claim 4, further comprising: detecting that the reply is no longer the last reply in the conversation; and (Fig. 5; Par. [0012, 267-8] data is added so that the platform knows when and where (i.e. the last reply) a user is in or has last been in a conversation)
updating the second database schema to indicate a different reply as being the last reply in the conversation. (Fig. 5; Par. [0012, 267-8] data is added so that the platform knows when and where (i.e. the last reply) a user is in or has last been in a conversation)
Regarding claim 7, Horvitz and Robertson teach claim 1 as shown above, and Horvitz further teaches
The method of claim 1, wherein generating, by the processing device, the database schema is prior to receiving, from the client device, the request to provide the conversation, and wherein the plurality of replies of the conversation comprises sender information, an attachment, and a conversation tag. (Par. [0193] MSN messenger (i.e. comprises sender info, attachment and conversation tag) is among the listed endpoints for this schema-based preference service)
Regarding claim(s) 8, while worded slightly differently, is rejected under the same rationale as claim 1.
Horvitz further teaches a memory (Fig. 1 #131); and a processing device (Fig. 1 #120).
Regarding claim(s) 11, while worded slightly differently, is rejected under the same rationale as claim 4.
Regarding claim(s) 12, while worded slightly differently, is rejected under the same rationale as claim 5.
Regarding claim(s) 13, while worded slightly differently, is rejected under the same rationale as claim 6.
Regarding claim(s) 14, while worded slightly differently, is rejected under the same rationale as claim 7.
Regarding claim(s) 15, while worded slightly differently, is rejected under the same rationale as claim 8.
Regarding claim(s) 18, while worded slightly differently, is rejected under the same rationale as claim 4.
Regarding claim(s) 19, while worded slightly differently, is rejected under the same rationale as claim 5.
Regarding claim(s) 20, while worded slightly differently, is rejected under the same rationale as claim 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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.
Claim(s) 3, 10, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horvitz et al. (US Pub. 2003/0131142) in view of Robertson et al. (US Pat. 10,810,654) and further in view of Gonzales Macias et al. (US Pub. 2024/0152419).
Regarding claim(s) 3, Horvitz and Roberson teach claim 1 as shown above, but do not explicitly teach
The method of claim 1, further comprising: fetching the first set of data and the second set of data in parallel.
However, from the same field, Gonzales Macias further teaches
The method of claim 1, further comprising: fetching the first set of data and the second set of data in parallel. (Par. [0045-7, 97] the system can load data from different social media APIs in parallel)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the social media monitoring of Gonzales Macias into the information agent service of Horvitz. The motivation for this combination would have been to make it easier to perform tasks and work more efficiently as explained in Gonzales Macias (Par. [0005]).
Regarding claim(s) 10, while worded slightly differently, is rejected under the same rationale as claim 3.
Regarding claim(s) 17, while worded slightly differently, is rejected under the same rationale as claim 3.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to J MITCHELL CURRAN whose telephone number is (469)295-9081. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Sherief Badawi can be reached on (571) 272-9782. 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.
/J MITCHELL CURRAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2169
/SHERIEF BADAWI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2169