Art Rejection
1. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
2. Claims 1, 3-7, 14 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shih, U.S. pat. Appl. Pub. No. 2017/0364303, in view of Kithany, U.S. pat. Appl. Pub. No. 2024/0267461.
Per claim 1, Shih discloses a computer implemented method comprising:
a) identifying, by a processor, a plurality of electronic files stored in association with a user account (see par 0054-0055);
b) analyzing, by the processor, the plurality of electronic files, the analysis comprising assigning based on at least one characteristic of each of the plurality of the electronic files, a weighted rating to each of the plurality of files (see par 0056, 0060);
c) identifying, based on the assigned weighed rating, at least one file that is a candidate for deletion, the identification comprising a determining that an assigned weighted rating for the at least one file is greater than a threshold (see par 0065);
d) compiling, by the processor, an electronic message, the electronic message comprising an output related to the identified at least one file, the output comprising content indicating deletion of the at least one file (see par 0071);
e) causing display, by the processor, in association with a user interface of the user account, the electronic message (see par 0071);
f) receiving, by the processor, user input related to the at least one file (see par 0072);
g) analyzing, by the processor, the user input (see par 0073); and
h) performing, by the processor based on the analysis of the user input, an action on the at least one file conforming to the user input (see par 0073).
Shih does not teach using a large language model (LLM) to analyze message and/or user command. However, The use of LLM, e.g., AI model, to analyze message and/or user command to determine user intent is known in the art as disclosed by Kithany (see Kithany, abstract and par 0078-0079).
It would have been also obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize LLM in Shih because such LLM model would have enabled automatically analyzing and processing messages more effectively (see Shih, par 0070).
Per claims 3-5, Shih teaches analyzing content and/or characteristic of an electronic messages and determining that the content indicates that the message is candidate for deletion (see par 0056).
Per claim 6, Shih teaches identifying the one file that is candidate for deletion comprises analyzing user a download history of the one file, e.g., determining when the one file was last accessed (see par 0060).
Per claim 7, Shih teaches deleting the one file, wherein deletion of the one file causes the user account to be modified, i.e., increasing storage capability (see par 0073).
Claims 14 and 16-20 are similar in scope as that of claims 1 and 3-6.
3. Claims 2, 8-13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shih and Kithany, U.S. pat. Appl. Pub. No. 2017/0364303, and further in view of Balasaygun, U.S. pat. Appl. Pub. No. 2011/0047228.
Per claims 12-13, Shih discloses a method for enable the user to identify candidate electronic files for removing from user account for various reasons including duplicate files, least used files, etc., to free more storage space (see Shih, par 0053). Shih does not teach that the electronic files comprises a plurality electronic messages and the user account comprises electronic messaging service. However, Balasaygun discloses a prior art method for identifying and removing stale messages from user account (see Balasaygun, par 0033).
It would have been also obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to practice Shih invention with different electronic files including messages because it would have enabled the user to manage storage for the messages.
Per claims 2 and 15, Balasaygun teaches identifying a candidate message for deletion or removing from main storage by comparing data within the one file to data within the profile of the user account and determining that the data within the one file does not match the data within the user account, i.e., determining a lost file (see par 0035).
It would have been also obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize Balasaygun’s teaching in Shih because it would have enabled identifying candidate message for removing from the main storage.
Per claims 8 and 10, Balasaygun teaches removing the one file from main storage by moving or downloading the one file to a different storage location/directory (see par 0037, 0040).
Per claim 9, Balasaygun also teaches applying tag to the one file, e.g., visible indicator (see par 0037).
Per claim 11, Balasaygun teaches removing or unsubscribing the message from a message list associated with the one file, e.g., removing the lost file (see par 0035).
Response to Amendment
4. Applicant’s arguments filed March 18, 2026 with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are deemed moot in view of new grounds of rejection set forth above.
Conclusion
5. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Viet Vu whose telephone number is 571-272-3977. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Thursday from 8:00am to 6:00pm. The Group general information number is 571-272-2400. The Group fax number is 571-273-8300.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Emmanuel Moise, can be reached at 571-272-3865.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov.
Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/Viet D Vu/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2455
4/20/26
Prosecution Insights