DETAILED ACTION
Claims 21, 31, 41 and 42 have been amended.
Claims 1-20, 23, 25, 26, 28, 30, 33, 35, 36, 38 and 40 have been previously cancelled
Claims 21, 22, 24, 27, 29, 31, 32, 34, 37, 39, 41 and 42 are pending.
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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02/15/26 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
The 112 rejection of claims 21, 22, 24, 27, 29, 31, 32, 34, 37, 39, 41 and 42 has been withdrawn in view of the applicant’s amendments.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 103 rejection of independent claims 21 and 31 (see applicant’s remarks; pages 14-16) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
In particular, the examiner has introduced Seshadri to disclose the amended limitations “(3) (B) preventing a second notification…while the first notification is being manifested by the first application, wherein the second notification is prevented in accordance with the second profile” and “(3) (D) preventing a fourth notification…while the third notification is being manifested by the first application, wherein the fourth notification is prevented in accordance with the second profile”, as shown in the rejection below.
The applicant states the same arguments for dependent claims 22, 24, 27, 29, 32, 34, 37, 39, 41 and 42 as that of the independent claims 21 and 31 (see applicant’s remarks; page 17). As such, the same rationale discussed above regarding independent claims 21 and 31 applies equally as well to dependent claims 22, 24, 27, 29, 32, 34, 37, 39, 41 and 42.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 21, 22, 24, 29, 31, 32, 34 and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sylvain (U.S. 2012/0311045 A1) in view of Gil et al. (U.S. 2010/0088140 A1), and further in view of Seshadri et al. (U.S. 7,209,916 B1).
Regarding claims 21 and 31, Sylvain discloses a method and system comprising:
(1) receiving user input specifying a deferral period (see Sylvain; paragraphs 0018, 0024 and 0026; Sylvain discloses user rules that specify do not disturb and delivery intervals including a time delay, i.e. “deferral period”, for notifications. A subscriber uses, i.e. “user input”, a web portal to add, delete and modify the user rules);
(3) while the first profile and a second profile are active (see Sylvain; paragraphs 0017, 0018 and 0031; Sylvain discloses filter criteria, i.e. “the first profile and second profile…” including, parameters, conditions, and user device preferences to be used, i.e. “…are active”, and maintained in a subscriber database. In particular, the database is accessed to determine that a notification should be delivered. The examiner notes that according to the applicant’s specification, a profile refers to any set of data; see applicant’s specification as filed; paragraph 0037):
(3) (A) manifesting, via the first application on the computer, a first notification of a first message transmissible via a first communication mode, wherein the first notification is manifested in accordance with the first profile (see Sylvain; paragraphs 0017, 0018, 0021 and 0022; Sylvain discloses according to filter criteria, i.e. “accordance with the first profile”, a notification, i.e. “a first notification”, of a social network message, i.e. “a first message transmissible via a first communication mode”, is sent to the subscriber’s PC, i.e. “the first application on the computer”);
(3) (C) manifesting, via the first application on the computer, a third notification of a second message transmissible via a second communication mode, wherein the second communication mode differs from the first communication mode, and wherein the first notification is manifested in accordance with the first profile (see Sylvain; paragraphs 0021 and 0022; Sylvain discloses according to filter criteria, i.e. “accordance with the first profile”, a notification, i.e. “a third notification”, of a weather alert, i.e. “a second message transmissible via a second communication mode”, is sent to the subscriber’s PC, i.e. “the first application on the computer”); and
(4) in response to detecting that the deferral period has expired after receipt of the first message (see Sylvain; paragraph 0024; Sylvain discloses expiration of a time delay, i.e. “deferral period has expired”):
(4) (A) allowing the second notification of the first message to be manifested by the communication device (see Sylvain; paragraphs 0021, 0024 and 0029; Sylvain discloses sending a buffered notification, e.g. notification of the social network message, i.e. “second notification”, to the subscriber upon expiration of a time delay. In particular, the filter criteria is evaluated, periodically, to check the rule, e.g. time delay, and if the criteria is met then the buffered notification is forwarded, i.e. “allowing…to be manifested”, to the user device, e.g. television, i.e. “communication device”);
(4) (B) allowing the fourth notification to be manifested by the communication device (see Sylvain; paragraphs 0021, 0024 and 0029; Sylvain discloses sending a buffered notification, e.g. notification of the weather alert, i.e. “fourth notification”, to the subscriber upon expiration of a time delay. In particular, the filter criteria is evaluated, periodically, to check the rule, e.g. time delay, and if the criteria is met then the buffered notification is forwarded, i.e. “allowing…to be manifested”, to the user device, e.g. television, i.e. “communication device”).
While Sylvain discloses determining user availability and status (see Sylvain; paragraphs 0024 and 0033), Sylvain does not explicitly disclose (2) in response to detecting that a user is engaged in an activity associated with a first application being executed by a computer, activating a first profile and a second profile.
In analogous art, Gil discloses (2) in response to detecting that a user is engaged in an activity associated with a first application being executed by a computer, activating a first profile and a second profile (see Gil; paragraphs 0077, 0078, 0091, 0130, and 0149; Gil discloses defining relationships, i.e. “a first profile”, between activities and availability levels for a user associated with applications. Monitoring applications executing on a computer in which the monitoring includes determining how recently input has been received in each application. For example, determining activity associated with a specific user and which application, i.e. “a first application”, has had recent user input, i.e. “user is engaged”, within some threshold duration. In response to determining the activity, i.e. “in response to detecting that a user is engaged”, the system prevents alerts based on a defined relationship and the level mapped to the activity, i.e. “activating a first profile and a second profile”, to the user that are indicative of incoming electronic communications. In other words, a relationship between a user’s activity associated with an application is used in determining to prevent specific alerts);
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Sylvain and Gil because they all disclose features of a notification for incoming communications, and as such are within the same environment.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, to incorporate the feature of determining when a user is active in an application as taught by Gil into the system of Sylvain in order to provide the benefit of scalability by allowing the ability to prevent interrupting a user when the user is engaged in a current activity (see Gil; paragraph 0130), such as using an application, e.g. mobile application, while attending a meeting (see Sylvain; paragraphs 0022 and 0033).
While Sylvain discloses “manifesting, via the first application on the computer, a first notification transmissible via a first communication mode…” and “manifesting, via the first application on the computer, a third notification of a second message transmissible…”, as discussed above, the combination of Sylvain and Gil does not explicitly disclose (3) (B) preventing a second notification of the first message from being manifested by a communication device while the first notification is being manifested by the first application, wherein the second notification is prevented in accordance with the second profile; and (3) (D) preventing a fourth notification of the second message from being manifested by the communication device while the third notification is being manifested by the first application, wherein the fourth notification is prevented in accordance with the second profile.
In analogous art, Seshadri discloses (3) (B) preventing a second notification of the first message from being manifested by a communication device while the first notification is being manifested by the first application, wherein the second notification is prevented in accordance with the second profile (see Seshadri; column 5 lines 25-45 and column 7 lines 5-31; Seshadri discloses determining when a notification should be delivered to a user based on user context, state information, such as a user’s focus and activity with an application, e.g. email program, and rules or conditions. A rule or condition, i.e. “second profile”, causes one or more automated actions to occur, such as sending and delaying, i.e. “preventing”, a notification, i.e. “second notification”, to one or more desk top or mobile devices. In other words, a notification is delayed from being sent to a mobile device based on the rule or condition, i.e. “preventing a second notification…in accordance with the second profile”, while a separate notification is sent to another device, e.g. desk top, i.e. “while the first notification is being manifested by the first application”); and
(3) (D) preventing a fourth notification of the second message from being manifested by the communication device while the third notification is being manifested by the first application, wherein the fourth notification is prevented in accordance with the second profile (see Seshadri; column 5 lines 25-45 and column 7 lines 5-31; Seshadri discloses determining when a notification should be delivered to a user based on user context, state information, such as a user’s focus and activity with an application, e.g. email program, and rules or conditions. A rule or condition, i.e. “second profile”, causes one or more automated actions to occur, such as sending and delaying, i.e. “preventing”, a notification, i.e. “fourth notification”, to one or more desk top or mobile devices. In other words, a notification is delayed from being sent to a mobile device based on the rule or condition, i.e. “preventing a second notification…in accordance with the second profile”, while a separate notification is sent to another device, e.g. desk top, i.e. “while the third notification is being manifested by the first application”).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Sylvain, Gil and Seshadri because they all disclose features of providing a notification for incoming communications, and as such are within the same environment.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, to incorporate the feature of delaying notifications as taught by Seshadri into the combined system of Sylvain and Gil in order to provide the benefit of scalability by allowing the ability to mitigate unwanted interruptions and facilitate efficient delivery of automated services (see Seshadri; column 2 lines 56-61) when the user is engaged in a current activity (see Gil; paragraph 0130), such as using an application, e.g. mobile application, while attending a meeting (see Sylvain; paragraphs 0022 and 0033).
Further, Sylvain discloses the additional limitations of claim 31, at least one non- transitory computer-readable medium having computer program instructions stored thereon, the computer program instructions being executable by at least one computer processor (see Sylvain; paragraph 0005; Sylvain discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium having stored thereon executable instructions executed by a processor).
Regarding claims 22 and 32, Sylvain, Gil and Seshadri disclose all the limitations of claims 21 and 31, as discussed above, and further the combination of Sylvain, Gil and Seshadri clearly discloses wherein detecting that the user is engaged in an activity associated with the first application comprises detecting that a user interface window displaying output from the first application has user interface focus, and wherein the first application is a web-based application executing in a web browser (see Gil; paragraphs 0009, 0078, 0081 and 0091; Gil discloses identifying a currently active activity includes automatically identifying a specific application associated with a currently selected window, i.e. “a user interface window…has user interface focus”. Activity determination may include monitoring applications, i.e. “the first application”, that the user is currently engaged. The application is part of a web client or web browser is used, i.e. “web-based application executing in a web browser”).
The prior art used in the rejection of the current claim is combined using the same motivations as was applied in claims 21 and 31.
Regarding claims 24 and 34, Sylvain, Gil and Seshadri disclose all the limitations of claims 21 and 31, as discussed above, and further the combination of Sylvain, Gil and Seshadri clearly discloses preventing the second notification of the first message from being manifested by the communication device comprises preventing the second notification from being manifested via at least one external notification channel while storing the first message in an inbox (see Sylvain; paragraphs 0016, 0021, 0024, 0029 and 0033; Sylvain discloses messaged can be delayed, such as using email, i.e. “in an inbox”. And according to filter criteria, the notification, i.e. “second notification”, of the social network message to a user device, e.g. the television, may be buffered for a later delivery, while the message is also buffered, i.e. “while storing the first message”); and
preventing the fourth notification of the second message from being manifested by the communication device comprises preventing the fourth notification from being manifested via the at least one external notification channel while storing the second message in the inbox ((see Sylvain; paragraphs 0016, 0021, 0024, 0029 and 0033; Sylvain discloses messaged can be delayed, such as using email, i.e. “in an inbox”. And according to filter criteria, the notification, i.e. “fourth notification”, of the social network message to a user device, e.g. the television, may be buffered for a later delivery, while the message is also buffered, i.e. “while storing the first message”);
wherein the at least one external notification channel comprises at least one of email notifications or mobile push notifications (see Sylvain; paragraph 0014; Sylvain discloses notification services such as emails).
Regarding claims 29 and 39, Sylvain, Gil and Seshadri disclose all the limitations of claims 21 and 31, as discussed above, and further the combination of Sylvain, Gil and Seshadri clearly discloses detecting that the first application is not receiving user input (see Gil; paragraphs 0114 and 0116; Gil discloses determining the executing application has not received user input based on a threshold duration of time), wherein detecting that the first application is not receiving user input comprises:
determining a duration since a most recent user input to the first application (see Gil; paragraphs 0078, 0091, 0114 and 0116; Gil discloses activity determination may include monitoring applications for how recently input, such as user input, has been received since a threshold duration of time, i.e. “duration since a most recent user input”); and
determining that the duration exceeds a predetermined threshold (see Gil; paragraph 0114; Gil discloses the activity determination logic may run a clock or timer to determine durations between inputs to one or more applications, i.e. “determining that the duration exceeds a predetermined threshold”, executing on the computing system).
The prior art used in the rejection of the current claim is combined using the same motivations as was applied in claims 21 and 31.
Claims 27 and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sylvain (U.S. 2012/0311045 A1) in view of Gil et al. (U.S. 2010/0088140 A1) and Seshadri et al. (U.S. 7,209,916 B1), as applied to claims 21 and 31 above, and further in view of Othmer et al. (U.S. 8,233,943 B1).
Regarding claims 27 and 37, Sylvain, Gil and Seshadri disclose all the limitations of claims 21 and 31, as discussed above. While the combination of Sylvain, Gil and Seshadri discloses a “first profile” that is active, as discussed above, the combination of Sylvain and Gil does not explicitly disclose synchronizing the first profile activation across multiple devices associated with the user.
In analogous art, Othmer discloses synchronizing the first profile activation across multiple devices associated with the user (see Othmer; column 6 lines 56-65; Othmer discloses a recipient may synchronize the alert profile for multiple devices, such as, laptop and PC, i.e. “first profile activation across multiple devices”).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Sylvain, Gil, Seshadri and Othmer because they all disclose features of providing a notification for incoming communications, and as such are within the same environment.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, to incorporate alert profiles as taught by Othmer into the combined system of Sylvain, Gil and Seshadri in order to provide the benefit of scalability by allowing the user to have different alert profiles for certain types of communications and rules (see Othmer; column 2 lines 19-20 and column 8 lines 25-32).
Claims 41 and 42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sylvain (U.S. 2012/0311045 A1) in view of Gil et al. (U.S. 2010/0088140 A1) and Seshadri et al. (U.S. 7,209,916 B1), as applied to claims 29 and 39 above, and further in view of Bocking et al. (U.S. 2007/0021108 A1).
Regarding claims 41 and 42, Sylvain, Gil and Seshadri disclose all the limitations of claims 29 and 39, as discussed above. Further, the combination of Sylvain, Gil and Seshadri discloses (5) in response to detecting that the first application is not receiving user input (see Gil; paragraphs 0114 and 0116; Gil discloses determining the executing application has not received user input based on a threshold duration of time): (5) (A) deactivating the first profile (see Gil; paragraphs 0077, 0080 and 0116; Gil discloses identifying the application, which is associated with the user, is not active. When the user is engaging in certain activities, e.g. input for an application, alerts regarding incoming communications are prevented. However, communications are permitted when the level of the user is not active. In other words, the relationship between the user being active on the application is not used, i.e. “deactivating the first profile”, in which alerts are prevented); and
(5) (B) activating a third profile (see Gil; paragraphs 0080, 0147, 0156 and 0159; Gil discloses the server allows the electronic communications based on the availability/activity of the user. The server stores a collection of policies that include configurable activities and availability status or levels and their relationships. When the user is not active in an application, e.g. application does not receive user input, alerts are permitted. In other words, when it is determined that no user input has been received at the application, the relationship between the user not being active on the application used, i.e. “activating a third profile”, in which alerts are permitted).
The combination of Sylvain, Gil and Seshadri does not explicitly disclose (6) while the third profile is active: (6) (A) receiving a fifth message transmissible via the first communication mode; (6) (B) manifesting, via the first application on the computer, a fifth notification of the fifth message; and (6) (C) allowing the fifth notification to be manifested by the communication device while the fifth notification is being manifested by the first application.
In analogous art, Bocking discloses (6) while the third profile is active (see Bocking; paragraph 0061 and Figure 5; Bocking discloses the Normal profile, i.e. “third profile”, active, while other profiles are inactive, e.g. OFF profile and Phone only profile):
(6) (A) receiving a fifth message transmissible via the first communication mode (see Bocking; paragraphs 0051 and 0055; Bocking discloses an incoming message, i.e. “fifth message transmissible via the first communication mode”);
(6) (B) manifesting, via the first application on the computer, a fifth notification of the fifth message (see Bocking; paragraphs 0051 and 0055 and Figure 5; Bocking discloses the notification mechanism of the mobile device, i.e. “client computer”, using a speaker, display or vibrate mechanism, for alerting a user to the receipt of an incoming message. The profiles control the behavior of the device in different situations. Therefore, when the Normal profile is active, notification, i.e. a “fifth notification”, for the incoming message, i.e. “first communication mode”, is performed, i.e. “to be manifested”. In other words, when the Normal profile is selected to be active for a different situation, i.e. no longer needing notifications to be OFF, notifications for the incoming message are performed at the mobile device); and
(6) (C) allowing the fifth notification to be manifested by the communication device while the fifth notification is being manifested by the first application (see Bocking; paragraphs 0051 and 0055 and Figure 5; Bocking discloses the notification mechanism of the mobile device, i.e. “client computer”, using a speaker, display or vibrate mechanism, for alerting a user to the receipt of an incoming message. The profiles control the behavior of the device in different situations. Therefore, when the Normal profile is active, notification, i.e. a “fifth notification”, for the incoming message, i.e. “first communication mode”, is performed, i.e. “to be manifested”).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Sylvain, Gil, Seshadri and Bocking because they all disclose features of providing a notification for incoming communications, and as such are within the same environment.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, to incorporate the feature of specifying notification preferences for different profiles for different type of scenarios as taught by Bocking (see Bocking; paragraphs 0055 and 0061) into the combined system of Sylvain, Gil and Seshadri in order to provide the benefit of scalability by allowing a user to select unique notifications for device events (see Bocking; paragraph 0007).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Kyprianou (U.S. 2013/0078958 A1) discloses managing notifications by determining whether a user will likely receive and process communications and delaying notifications based on the determination.
Carter et al. (U.S. 2009/0187466 A1) discloses prevent repeatedly sending the same notification message to a customer based on a time parameter.
Horvitz (U.S. 2004/0254998 A1) discloses deferring notifications based on priority.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM A COONEY whose telephone number is (571)270-5653. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30am-5:00pm (every other Fri off).
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, Umar Cheema can be reached at 571-270-3037. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/A.A.C/Examiner, Art Unit 2458 03/04/26
/UMAR CHEEMA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2458