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. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 12/20/2023, 11/19/2024, 1/10/2025, and 8/8/2025 were filed and are being considered by the examiner. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale , or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim(s) 1-4, 7-11, and 14-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Argoety et al (US 2021/0120014 A1). In regard to claims 1-4, 7-11, and 14-18 , Argoety et al disclose a method, comprising: receiving an alert, wherein the alert comprises activity information and user information; obtaining a set of activity features based on the activity information; obtaining a set of user features based on the user information; and determining a score of the alert based on the set of activity features and the set of user features , and as recited in claims 2, 9, and 16, determining an activity feature vector based on the set of activity features; determining a user feature vector based on the set of user features; and determining the score based on the activity feature vector and the user feature vector , and as recited in claims 3, 10, and 17, determining, a user group based on the user information; and wherein the set of user features comprises a feature of the user group , and as recited in claims 4, 11, and 18, the score is determined using machine learning operations , and as recited in claims 7 and 14, performing a responsive action based on the score. 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. Claim (s) 5, 6, 12, 13, 19, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Argoety et al (US 2021/0120014 A1) in view of Shaked et al (US 2017/0300814 A1). In regard to claims 5, 6, 12, 13, 19, and 20 , Argoety et al fail to disclose wherein the machine learning operations comprise processing an activity feature vector by using a first machine learning model and processing a user feature vector by using a second machine learning mode l, and wherein the score is determined by combining a first output of the first machine learning model and a second output of the second machine learning model. Shaked et al teaches a deep neural net and a wide model with a combining layer, where the two models are combined into a composite score. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to separate the user and activity information into separate models because that what would be required in order to use machine learning—these data would not be combined into a single model—they would need separate models that use a composite score in order to work. Shaked et al teaches using a combined score from two models and this can be combined with Argoety et al in order to improve accuracy of the score. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT CHRISTOPHER E DUNAY whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-1222 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 7:00 am - 6:00 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT James (Jong-Suk) Lee can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-7044 . 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. /CHRISTOPHER E DUNAY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875