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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-18 were previously pending and subject to a non-final office action mailed 04/24/2025. Claims 1, 6, 9, 10, 15 and 18 were amended; claim 3 and 12 were cancelled, and claims 19-22 were added in a reply filed 10/24/2025. Therefore claims 1-2, 4-11 and 13-22 are currently pending and subject to the final office action below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/24/2025 in regards to section 101 rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues “the pre-programmed empathetic profiles and pre-programmed user profiles help a user in creating an optimal empathetic profile and user profile. Secondly, the pre-programmed empathetic profiles and pre-programmed user profiles allow for the suggestion of relationship links. Optimal empathetic profiles and user profiles, and suggested relationship links minimize the amount of processing that needs to occur, as the interactions generated are optimized without the need for a processor to further analyze relationship links or update profiles based on the reactions from a user. Furthermore, optimal empathetic profiles and user profiles ensure that information used to create the triggers and thresholds for sending messages are part of said profiles. Triggers and thresholds are used as a gate for determining whether to generate and send out messages, and more importantly, help in not excessively sending out messages without triggers or thresholds, ensuring that the processor is minimizing the number of cycles needed for operation.
As such, the added subject matter of claim 3, specifically the pre- programmed empathetic profile sand the pre-programmed user profiles improve the functioning of the computer by minimizing and reducing the cycles a processor needs, and making the operation faster.” (remarks p. 8-9).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Merely using pre-programmed empathetic profiles and user profiles constitutes selecting and organizing information, which is an abstract mental process and a form of data modeling, not an improvement to computer functionality. The claims do not recite how the profiles are technically structured, stored, index, or executed in a manner that changes computer operations. Pre-programming profiles merely shifts work earlier in time, which is an abstract optimization technique and does not change how the computer operates.
Furthermore, the assertion that profiles are “optimal” and “optimized” describe a desired outcome, not a specific algorithmic or architectural mechanism that are not recited in the claims. Examiner respectfully notes that the claims are read in light of the specification and that the specification is not read into the claims.
The alleged reduction in processor cycles is conclusory and unsupported. The claims do not measure processor cycles, specify computational complexity, identify a hardware constraint or tie the reduction to any specific operation. The bare assertion that fewer processor cycles occur, without any claimed technical mechanism that causes such reduction, is insufficient to establish an improvement to computer performance.
Using triggers and threshold to decide whether to send a message is a conventional if/then decision, a long-standing automation technique and equivalent to human decision-making rules. The claims do not recite any unconventional trigger evaluation, hardware-level gating, or timing mechanism that departs from generic computer implementation.
Finally, the claims do not provide any improvement to computer technology itself. At most, the claims improve the content of message or the logic of interpersonal interactions, which is an improvement to a business or social process, not computer technology.
Applicant's arguments filed 10/24/2025 in regards to section 103 rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues “Chodavarapu clearly teaches a demographic or behavior template that is applied to a relationship…not applied to a user profile or empathetic profile” (remarks p. 10).
Examiner respectfully disagrees and argues that Applicant improperly elevates form over substance. Chodavarapu’s “social relation” is defined and stored using identity data, personal attributes, preferences, and contact information, which constitutes profile data regardless of nomenclature. Applying a demographic or vehavior template to “social relation” necessarily entails applying that template to the stored attributes of an individual (i.e. a profile). It is well established that functional equivalence controls over labeling and Applicant cannot avoid obviousness merely by pointing to different terminology.
Applicant argues that “the demographic or behavior template is not applied to a user profile or empathetic profile…the pre-programmed empathetic profiles are matched with the empathetic profiles, and the pre-programmed user profiles are matched with the user profiles”. (remarks p. 10-12).
This argument imposes a distinction not required by the claim language. Chodavarapu explicitly teaches (i) automatic classification of individuals into demographic groups, and (ii) automatic association of predefined templates based on that classification. Matching an individual’s stored attributes to a predefined demographic template is, in substance, matching a profile to a pre-programmed profile archetype. The claim does not require a separate database object literally labeled “profile template”; it only requires matching to a templated pre-programmed profile, which Chodavarapu teaches in function and result.
Applicant argues that “Chodavarapu does not require any verification, as the demographic and behaviour templates are applied to the relationships themselves, whereas in amended claim 1, the verification is an active step used, as the relationship links are proposed based on the templated pre- programmed empathetic profile and the templated pre-programmed user profile. Choadavarapu does not teach this additional step, and in fact teaches away from it, as the added step is not required with a templated relationship.”. (remarks p. 12).
Applicant’s teaching away argument is legally incorrect. Failure to disclose a step is not teaching away. Teaching away requires an express discouragement, criticism, or incompatibility with the claimed approach. Chodavarapu contains no disclosure discouraging verification, nor does it suggest that verification is undesirable or unnecessary. At most, Chodavarapu is silent on the word “verify”, which is insufficient as a matter of law to establish teaching away.
Applicant’s argument also ignores that Chodavarapu inherently performs verification through aggregation, classification, updating, and normalization of relationship data. Chodavarapu teaches automatically identifying relationship. Creating relationship records, updating them over time, and refining them based on newly obtained personal data. These operations necessarily verify the existence, accuracy, and applicability of relationship links. The claim does not require a discrete “verification flag”; it requires functionality that ensures correctness, which Chodavarapu provides.
Finally, Applicant’s asserted argument that the added steps is not required with a templated relationship is unsupported by the reference and logically flawed. Templates do not eliminate verification; they enable it. In Chodavarapu, demographic and behavior templates are used precisely to determine whether a relationship-based action is appropriate. That determination is itself a form of verification. Moreover, nothing in Chodavarapu suggests that template application precludes further validation or enrichment. The claim merely makes explicit what Chodavarapu already performs implicitly.
Applicant’s argument that none of the features are taught or suggested in any of Mansfield, Kraus, and Chodavarapu is incorrect. Kraus teaches creation of deceased profiles and relationship context; Chodavarapu teaches relationship database, template-based classification, enrichment, and triggered messaging; Mansfield teaches automated communication delivery based on trigger conditions via a communications interface. When combined, these references collectively teach or render obvious every limitation of amended claim 1. Applicant’s argument improperly dissects the claim and ignores the predictable results standard under KSR.
Applicant argues that “neither Mansfield, Kraus, or Tseng teach “updating the trigger condition based on the degree of engagement of the living individual” as recited in claim 19” (remarks p. 14)
Applicant’s argument applies an unduly narrow and formalistic interpretation of “trigger condition”. Under 103, the question is not whether it discloses the exact term “trigger”, but whether it discloses adjusting message delivery conditions based on measured user engagement. Tseng expressly teaches monitoring user reactions to notifications and modifying the conditions under which subsequent notifications are sent based on engagement patterns. Updating notification delivery logic in response to engagement is functionally equivalent to updating a trigger condition, and the claim does not require any particular semantic labeling of that condition.
Applicant argues “Mansfield teaches the use of triggers based on a location or a specified time…Mansfield does not reference any other form of triggers other than location or specified time” (remarks p. 15).
Applicant incorrectly assumes that Mansfield’s enumerated examples are exhaustive. Mansfield expressly teaches that communications are sent when specified criteria are satisfied, including event based and propensity based conditions. These criteria operate as triggers in the ordinary technical sense. The fact that Mansfield provides examples involving time and location does not preclude other trigger conditions, nor does it negate the obviousness of adapting those triggers based on feedback or engagement as taught by Tseng.
Applicant argues that “Mansfield teaches away from using any form of trigger based on a relationship, as the only relationship information used is as part of the content of a message” (remarks p. 15).
This argument misapplies the doctrine of teaching away. Mansfield does not criticize, discourage, or disclaim the use of relationship data as part of triggering logic; it merely discloses one implementation in which relationship information is used for message content and recipient selection. Silence or non-use of a feature does not constitute teaching away. Nothing in Mansfield suggests that relationship-based triggers would be undesirable, incompatible, or inferior.
Applicant argues that “Tseng teaches using machine learning to change the default push rate and neither a default push rate nor a maximum push rate is considered a trigger, a threshold or prevention mechanism”. (remarks p. 15).
Applicant draws an artificial distinction without technical substance. A “push rate” directly governs whether and when notifications are delivered, and therefore functions as a trigger condition or gating mechanism. Adjusting the rate at which notifications are sent based on engagement inherently updates the condition under which messages are permitted to be transmitted. The claim does not require a binary trigger; it merely requires that message transmission be conditioned on an adjustable criterion.
Furthermore, this distinction is semantic, not technical. In distributed messaging systems, rate limits, threshold, and triggers all serve as control mechanisms that determine message transmission eligibility. A maximum push rate necessarily gates message delivery once a threshold is reached. The claim language does not exclude quantitative or rate based trigger conditions, nor does it require a discrete on/off gate.
Applicant argues “tseng does not have any notification to use a trigger…its goal is to maximize notifications, rather than to determine thresholds” (remarks p. 15).
Applicant’s motivation argument is contradicted by Tseng itself. Tseng explicitly teaches limiting, adjusting, and optimizing notification delivery to prevent user fatigue and disengagement. The determination of a maximum or adjusted push rate is itself a threshold setting exercise motivated by engagement metrics. Optimizing delivery frequency based on engagement inherently requires updating the conditions under which messages are sent.
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 1-2, 4-11 and 13-22 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.
Claim 1/10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites “create the empathetic profile using personal data of a deceased individual; match the empathetic profile to a templated pre-programmed empathetic profile; create a user profile using personal data of the living individual; match the user profile to a templated pre-programmed user profile; create a relationship link between the empathetic profile and the user profile based on association data and similarities in data between the empathetic profile and the user profile; verify the relationship link using the templated pre-programmed empathetic profile and the templated pre-programmed user profile; add details to the relationship link using the templated pre- programed empathetic profile and the templated pre-programed user profile; and generate a message to be sent when a trigger condition is met, wherein content of the generated message is based on the empathetic profile, the user profile and the relationship link”
The limitations above, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a method of generating an empathetic profile and sending messages which is organizing a human activity. That is, the method allows for managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions (i.e. following rules or instructions) and commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites processor, database, memory to store the empathetic profile, the user profile, communication interface and the database of relationships between the empathetic profile and the user profile (claim 1), memory, database, communication interface (claim 10). Each of the additional limitations is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements, alone or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements, alone or in combination, are nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception on a general computer.
Dependent claims 2/11 is also directed to an abstract idea without significantly more because it further narrows the abstract idea described in relation to claim 1 without successfully integrating the exception into a practical application (social media account is recited at a high level of recitation which amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception in a computer environment) or providing significantly more limitations.
Dependent claims 4/13 is also directed to an abstract idea without significantly more because it further narrows the abstract idea described in relation to claim 1 without successfully integrating the exception into a practical application (a known device associated with the user is recited at a high level of recitation which amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception in a computer environment) or providing significantly more limitations.
Dependent claims 5/14 is also directed to an abstract idea without significantly more because it further narrows the abstract idea described in relation to claim 1 without successfully integrating the exception into a practical application or providing significantly more limitations.
Dependent claims 6/15 is also directed to an abstract idea without significantly more because it further narrows the abstract idea described in relation to claim 1 without successfully integrating the exception into a practical application (communication interface and a user interface is recited at a high level of recitation which amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception in a computer environment) or providing significantly more limitations.
Dependent claims 7/16 is also directed to an abstract idea without significantly more because it further narrows the abstract idea described in relation to claim 1 without successfully integrating the exception into a practical application (communication interface and social media account recited at a high level of recitation which amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception in a computer environment) or providing significantly more limitations.
Dependent claims 8/17 is also directed to an abstract idea without significantly more because it further narrows the abstract idea described in relation to claim 1 without successfully integrating the exception into a practical application (communication interface and sms recited at a high level of recitation which amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception in a computer environment) or providing significantly more limitations.
Dependent claims 9/18 is also directed to an abstract idea without significantly more because it further narrows the abstract idea described in relation to claim 1 without successfully integrating the exception into a practical application (communication interface and SMS recited at a high level of recitation which amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception in a computer environment) or providing significantly more limitations.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites “create the empathetic profile using personal data of a deceased individual; match the empathetic profile to a templated pre-programmed empathetic profile; create a user profile using personal data of the living individual; match the user profile to a templated pre-programmed user profile; create a relationship link between the empathetic profile and the user profile based on association data and similarities in data between the empathetic profile and the user profile; verify the relationship link using the templated pre-programmed empathetic profile and the templated pre-programmed user profile; add details to the relationship link using the templated pre- programed empathetic profile and the templated pre-programed user profile; and generate a message to be sent when a trigger condition is met, wherein content of the generated message is based on the empathetic profile, the user profile and the relationship link;”
The limitations above, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a method of generating an empathetic profile and sending messages which is organizing a human activity. That is, the method allows for managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions (i.e. following rules or instructions) and commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites processor, database, memory to store the empathetic profile, the user profile, communication interface and the database of relationships between the empathetic profile and the user profile. Each of the additional limitations is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements, alone or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements, alone or in combination, are nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception on a general computer.
Dependent claim 20 is also directed to an abstract idea without significantly more because it further narrows the abstract idea described in relation to claim 1 without successfully integrating the exception into a practical application (“determine, based on at least one of the empathetic profile or the user profile, the method of transmission of the generated message, wherein the method of transmission includes at least one of sending the generated message to the user interface to be displayed on the user interface, sending the generated message to a social media account associated with the user profile, and sending the generate message to a phone number associated with the user profile via SMS” is recited at a high level of recitation which amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception in a computer environment) or providing significantly more limitations.
Dependent claim 21 is also directed to an abstract idea without significantly more because it further narrows the abstract idea described in relation to claim 10 without successfully integrating the exception into a practical application (“prior to sending the generated message, determining, based on at least one of the empathetic profile or the user profile, the method of intended transmission of the generated message, wherein the method of intended transmission includes at least one of sending the generated message to the user interface to be displayed on the user interface, sending the generated message to a social media account associated with the user profile, and sending the generate message to a phone number associated with the user profile via SMS: and wherein sending the generated message includes using the method of intended transmission” is recited at a high level of recitation which amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception in a computer environment) or providing significantly more limitations.
Dependent claim 22 is also directed to an abstract idea without significantly more because it further narrows the abstract idea described in relation to claim 19 without successfully integrating the exception into a practical application (“wherein the reaction to the message includes at least one of the length of a response, the duration of time a window with the message is active on a receiving device or the lack of a response to the generated message” is recited at a high level of recitation which amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception in a computer environment) or providing significantly more limitations.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-7, 10-11, and 13-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mansfield (US 2015/0172248) in view of Kraus (US 2015/0101026), Chodavarapu (US 2013/0151632) in further view of Abramson (US 2018/0293483).
As per claim 1/10, Mansfield discloses a system for generating an empathetic profile and sending messages to a living individual, the system comprising:
a processor configured to:
create a user profile using personal data of the living individual (paragraph 71-72);
create a relationship link in a database of relationships between the empathetic profile and the user profile based on association data (paragraph 24, 72, 60)
generate a message to be sent by a communications interface when a trigger condition is met, wherein content of the generated message is based on the empathetic profile, the user profile and the relationship link (paragraph 73-78, 87).
However, Mansfield does not disclose but Kraus discloses create the empathetic profile using personal data of a deceased individual (paragraph 38, 36, 92);
Create a relationship link in a database of relationships based on similarities in data between the empathetic profile and the user profile (paragraph 62-63, 69).
a memory to store the empathetic profile, the user profile, and the database of relationships between the empathetic profile and the user profile (paragraph 43).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include the limitations above as taught by Kraus in the teaching of Mansfield, in order to allow preservation of such content, as well as ongoing expansion and augmentation of such content, even after the passing away of the deceased person (please see Kraus paragraph 14).
However, Mansfield in view of Kraus does not disclose but Abramson discloses match the empathetic profile to a templated pre-programmed empathetic profile (paragraph 26-28, it expressly teaches a generic, pre-programmed personality index that exists independently of any person and is configured by applying social or personal data of a specific individual to produce a personalized persona); match the user profile to a templated pre-programmed user profile (paragraph 26-28, the paragraph disclose maintaining a generic personality index, applying personal social data of a specific person to that generic index and producing a personalized personality index for that person).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include the limitations above as taught by Abramson in the teaching of Mansfield, in order to create a conversational chat bot of a specific person (please see Abramson, abstract).
However, Mansfield in view of Kraus does not disclose but Chodavarapu discloses verify the relationship link using the templated pre-programmed empathetic profile and the templated pre-programmed user profile (paragraph 21, “[0021] The template manager may be configured automatically to identify a particular demographic group to which the particular social relation belongs, and automatically to associate a corresponding demographic template to the particular social relation. Instead, or in addition, the template manager may be configured to associate the demographic template with the particular social relation in response to receiving user input indicating the association of the demographic template with the particular social relation, the template manager being configured to perform the prior operation of presenting the plurality of predefined demographic templates to the user, the user input comprising selection of the demographic template.” Classification and normalization of relationships through template association, which inherently validates the appropriateness of the relationship record. Verification does not require a separately labeled step; confirming that a relationship conforms to expected template based criteria is enough to satisfy the limitation); add details to the relationship link using the templated pre- programed empathetic profile and the templated pre-programed user profile (paragraph 40, “[0040] Social relationship information in the relationship database 305 may automatically be updated, at operation 608, based on newly aggregated social relationship information or data. Such updating promotes currency and relevancy of social relationship information, to facilitate the continuation of a relationship. For example, if a social relation 112 changes its address, changes its e-mail address, changes its telephone number, changes occupation or place of work, the relationship database 305 may automatically be updated to reflect the latest contact details, personal information, personal preferences, and the like, on the totality of the user's 144 social relations 112.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include the limitations above as taught by Chodavarapu in the teaching of Mansfield in view of Kraus, in order to manage social relationships by gathering information about social relationships for a particular user from a variety of sources (please see Kraus, abstract).
As per claim 2/11, Mansfield does not disclose but Kraus discloses the processor further configured to determine if the empathetic profile includes a social media account, and if the social media account is present, the processor further configured to generate and send a request through the communication interface to a social media provider to change the status of the social media account of the deceased individual associated with the empathetic profile to a deceased status (paragraph 22, 57, 59)(please see claim 1 rejection for combination rationale).
As per claim 4/13, Mansfield discloses wherein the trigger condition is a location of a known device associated with the user profile matching a location stored in the empathetic profile (paragraph 73-78).
As per claim 5/14, Mansfield discloses wherein the trigger condition is a date of significance to the deceased individual stored in the empathetic profile (paragraph 74).
As per claim 6/15, Mansfield discloses wherein the generated message is sent using the communication interface to a user interface to be displayed on the user interface (paragraph 101, 116).
As per claim 7/16, Mansfield discloses wherein the generated message is sent using the communication interface to a social media account associated with the user profile (paragraph 58-59).
As per claim 20, Mansfield discloses wherein the processor is further configured to determine, based on at least one of the empathetic profile or the user profile, the method of transmission of the generated message, wherein the method of transmission includes at least one of sending the generated message to the user interface to be displayed on the user interface, sending the generated message to a social media account associated with the user profile, and sending the generate message to a phone number associated with the user profile via SMS (paragraph 94, “0094] The communication may be sent to the recipient by voice, email, by text message, or by an alert in an application specific to the communication system. In some examples, the communication itself is sent, e.g., in the body of an email. In some examples, a link to the communication is sent and the recipient clicks on or otherwise follows the link to access the communication.”, [0072] The sender specifies the recipient, provides recipient criteria to be used by the communication system to identify the recipient, or both (202). If the sender provides recipient criteria, the communication system automatically determines the recipient (204). For instance, the recipient criteria may describe a relationship between the sender and the recipient (e.g., "my oldest granddaughter" or "hourly employees of BankOne Corp."). The recipient criteria may describe one or more characteristics of the recipient (e.g., "professional women who live in Boston," "people who are likely to attend the theater," or "dog owners"). [0073] The sender specifies the triggering location, provides location criteria to be used by the communication system to identify the triggering location, or both (206). If the sender provides location criteria, the communication system automatically determines the location (208). The triggering location may be an address (e.g., 1911 Main Street, Philadelphia, Pa.) or a place (e.g., John F. Kennedy International Airport). The triggering criteria may describe one or more characteristics of the triggering location (e.g., "my mother's tennis club" or "coffee shops near the recipient's office"). In some examples, the sender specifies a threshold distance around the triggering location within which the recipient can be considered to be "at" the triggering location. In some examples, the communication system determines the threshold distance, e.g., based on the location or by applying a default threshold value.”)
As per claim 21, Mansfield discloses prior to sending the generated message, determining, based on at least one of the empathetic profile or the user profile, the method of intended transmission of the generated message, wherein the method of intended transmission includes at least one of sending the generated message to the user interface to be displayed on the user interface, sending the generated message to a social media account associated with the user profile, and sending the generate message to a phone number associated with the user profile via SMS: and wherein sending the generated message includes using the method of intended transmission (paragraph 94, “0094] The communication may be sent to the recipient by voice, email, by text message, or by an alert in an application specific to the communication system. In some examples, the communication itself is sent, e.g., in the body of an email. In some examples, a link to the communication is sent and the recipient clicks on or otherwise follows the link to access the communication.”, [0072] The sender specifies the recipient, provides recipient criteria to be used by the communication system to identify the recipient, or both (202). If the sender provides recipient criteria, the communication system automatically determines the recipient (204). For instance, the recipient criteria may describe a relationship between the sender and the recipient (e.g., "my oldest granddaughter" or "hourly employees of BankOne Corp."). The recipient criteria may describe one or more characteristics of the recipient (e.g., "professional women who live in Boston," "people who are likely to attend the theater," or "dog owners"). [0073] The sender specifies the triggering location, provides location criteria to be used by the communication system to identify the triggering location, or both (206). If the sender provides location criteria, the communication system automatically determines the location (208). The triggering location may be an address (e.g., 1911 Main Street, Philadelphia, Pa.) or a place (e.g., John F. Kennedy International Airport). The triggering criteria may describe one or more characteristics of the triggering location (e.g., "my mother's tennis club" or "coffee shops near the recipient's office"). In some examples, the sender specifies a threshold distance around the triggering location within which the recipient can be considered to be "at" the triggering location. In some examples, the communication system determines the threshold distance, e.g., based on the location or by applying a default threshold value.”)
Claim(s) 8-9 and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mansfield (US 2015/0172248) in view of Kraus (US 2015/0101026) Chodavarapu (US 2013/0151632) in further view of Abramson (US 2018/0293483), as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1, Tseng (US 2012/0166530).
As per claim 8/17, Mansfield does not disclose but Tseng discloses wherein the generated message is sent using the communication interface via SMS to a phone number associated with the user profile (paragraph 34).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include the limitations above as taught by Tseng in the teaching of Mansfield, in order to provide notifications that are relevant to user's interests and current circumstances, increasing the likelihood that they will find content objects of interest (please see Tseng abstract).
As per claim 9/18, Mansfield does not disclose but Tseng discloses the processor further configured to: analyse a reaction to the message to determine a degree of engagement of the living individual; and update the trigger condition based on the degree of engagement of the living individual (paragraph 71, 72, “the social networking system 130 analyzes the third-party content object log 270 to identify how the user engages with the notifications provided to user device 110. The social networking system 130 identifies patterns of user engagement with notifications of content objects. The patterns describe the characteristics in which the user interacted with the notifications. Based on the identified patterns, the social networking system 130 updates the rate in which content object notifications are provided to the user whether it be updating the default push rate or the user's specified preferences.”)(please see claim 8 rejection for combination rationale).
Claim(s) 19 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mansfield (US 2015/0172248) in view of Kraus (US 2015/0101026) and Tseng (US 2012/0166530).
As per claim 19, Mansfield discloses a system for generating an empathetic profile and sending messages to a living individual, the system comprising:
a processor configured to:
create a user profile using personal data of the living individual (paragraph 71-72);
create a relationship link in a database of relationships between the empathetic profile and the user profile based on association data (paragraph 24, 72, 60)
generate a message to be sent by a communications interface when a trigger condition is met, wherein content of the generated message is based on the empathetic profile, the user profile and the relationship link (paragraph 73-78, 87).
However, Mansfield does not disclose but Kraus discloses create the empathetic profile using personal data of a deceased individual (paragraph 38, 36, 92);
Create a relationship link in a database of relationships based on similarities in data between the empathetic profile and the user profile (paragraph 62-63, 69).
a memory to store the empathetic profile, the user profile, and the database of relationships between the empathetic profile and the user profile (paragraph 43).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include the limitations above as taught by Kraus in the teaching of Mansfield, in order to allow preservation of such content, as well as ongoing expansion and augmentation of such content, even after the passing away of the deceased person (please see Kraus paragraph 14).
However, Mansfield in view of Kraus does not disclose but Tseng discloses analyse a reaction to the message to determine a degree of engagement of the living individual; and update the trigger condition based on the degree of engagement of the living individual (paragraph 71, 72, “the social networking system 130 analyzes the third-party content object log 270 to identify how the user engages with the notifications provided to user device 110. The social networking system 130 identifies patterns of user engagement with notifications of content objects. The patterns describe the characteristics in which the user interacted with the notifications. Based on the identified patterns, the social networking system 130 updates the rate in which content object notifications are provided to the user whether it be updating the default push rate or the user's specified preferences.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include the limitations above as taught by Tseng in the teaching of Mansfield, in order to provide notifications that are relevant to user's interests and current circumstances, increasing the likelihood that they will find content objects of interest (please see Tseng abstract).
As per claim 22, Mansfield does not disclose but Tseng discloses wherein the reaction to the message includes at least one of the length of a response, the duration of time a window with the message is active on a receiving device or the lack of a response to the generated message (paragraph 72-75, the system tracks notification that have been interacted with and the ones that have not been interacted with which Examiner interprets as lack of response)(please see claim 19 rejection for combination rationale).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OMAR ZEROUAL whose telephone number is (571)272-7255. The examiner can normally be reached Flex schedule.
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, Resha Desai can be reached at (571) 270-7792. 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.
OMAR . ZEROUAL
Examiner
Art Unit 3628
/OMAR ZEROUAL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628