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
2. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Response to Argument
3. Applicant's arguments filed on 12/23/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
4. Applicant arguments states that although Sharifi, Nowakowski, and Dotan-Cohen describe systems that display summaries of related messages, the features described by these references do not teach or suggest the claimed features for "suppressing the display of a new notification for the third message, wherein the suppression includes inhibiting a repeat of the content of the first notification."
In response
Examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant’s argument. The applicant’s augment focuses entirely on whether the reference teach on non-relied-upon alternative limitation “suppressing…” .However, because the examiner has elected to reject the claim based on the alternative limitation set ( generate a modified notification…), the applicant’s argument regarding the “suppressing….” feature is irrelevant to the merits of the rejection.
5. Applicant’s argument states that "causing the system to: generate a modified notification that is different than the first notification, the modified notification includes a portion of the third message and a portion of the first message, wherein the modified notification does not include the entire message of the first message or the third message, and wherein the modified notification excludes content from the second message, and cause a display of the modified version of the notification..."
none of the cited references teach any type of notification that combines message content from two related message while excluding content from an unrelated message.
In response,
Examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant’s argument. The combination of Sharifi, Dotan-Cohen and Nowakowski clearly teach “generate a modified notification…” limitations. Sharifi and Dotan-Cohen teaches determining relevancy and excluding unrelated content. The claim first requires determining that the third message has a threshold level of relevancy to the first message, Sharifi. [0053]-[0054}, and Dotan-Cohen [0005],[0045] provide detailed mechanisms for analyzing messages determining topical entities and clustering related messages into thread while excluding unrelated messages Dotan-Cohen [0050] explicitly teaches that messages failing to satisfy a relevance threshold are tagged as “not relevant” and are clustered and hidden from the user. This directly corresponds the claimed exclusion of “content from the second message” (the unrelated message form the modified notifications).
Nowakowski discloses generating a consolidated notification. Once the related messages (first and third) are identified and the unrelated message (second) is excluded, Nowakowski provides the mechanism for generating the modified notifications. Nowakowski,[0015] and [0028] teaches that when multiple notifications are related , the system generates a single, updated notification that includes “at least a portion of the content of the first notification and at least a portion of the content of the second notifications”. Combining the teaching to achieve the claimed result: A person of ordinary skill in the art would readily recognize the benefit of combing Dotan-Cohen/ Sharifi’s relevance filtering with Nowakowski;s notification consolidation. The motivation is clear: to improve user interface efficiency by reducing notification clutter. The skilled artisan would use the relevance determination logic of Sharifi and Dotan-Cohen to identify which messages (first and third) are related and which (second) is unrelated. Having identified this relationship, the artisan would then apply Nowakowski’s consolidation technique to generate a single notification that combines portion of the two related message inherently excluding the unrelated message, the combination yields the exact structure recited in the claim. A modified notification with portions of the first and third messages but not the entire messages, and excluding content from the second message. Therefore, for the above reasons, Examiner believed that rejection of the last Office action was proper and within their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification. See MPEP 2111 [R-l] Interpretation of Claims-Broadest Reasonable Interpretation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AlA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AlA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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.
7. 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 of this title, 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.
8. Claims 1-3,6-10,13-17 and 20are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharifi et al. (US 20180239495 A1) hereinafter Sharifi in view of Dotan-Cohen et al. (US 20190171693 A1) hereinafter Cohen and further in view of Nowakowski et al. (US 20150215258 A1) hereinafter Nowakowski.
Regarding claims 1 8 and 15, Sharifi discloses receiving a first message pertaining to a first topic (para. [0044] a first message 310 can be received by the computing device 110. The first message 310 includes content that can, e.g., include text such as one or more words. In the illustrated example, the first message 310 includes the text content “I am looking forward to our trip to Hawaii!”);
in response to receiving the first message, causing a display of the first message (para. [0044] the first message 310 is associated with a timestamp of “time t” and was sent by the sending user 105s via the sending computing device 110s. The first message 310 can be displayed in the message display portion 302);
receiving a second message pertaining to a second topic (para. [0045],[0063] message “I want to shop at Ala Moana” 320 can be received at time t+2);
in response to receiving the second message, causing a display second message (para. [0045] [0063] and see Fig. 3:325 message ““I want to shop at Ala Moana” displayed at time t+2);
receiving a third message(para. [0045] message we have to hike Diamond Head and go to Pearl Harbor” 325 received at time t+4);
analyzing the third message to determine that a topic of the third message has a threshold level of relevancy to the first topic of the first message (para. [0053] one or more topical entities for each message can also be determined by the Topic Determination Model 510 based on the topicality scores. In one example, the topicality scores of an entity can be compared to a topicality threshold. When the topicality score of a particular entity with respect to a message is satisfied, the particular entity may be classified as topical for that message (or for a group of messages). [0054] the entity “Hawaii” may be determined to be a topical entity based on the number of terms related to “Hawaii” in the messages 310, 320, and 325. The computing device 110 can recognize and identify a relationship between the terms (entities) “Hawaii,” “Ala Moana,” “Diamond Head,” and “Pearl Harbor” and may determine the topicality score of “Hawaii” to satisfy the topicality threshold [0029] The clustering of the plurality of messages into groups can further be based on other factors, such as the sent times of the messages, the difference between the sent time of a message and a read time of a previous (earlier) message, and/or whether the sender of a message is determined to be responding to a particular message (e.g., the sender initiated the composition of a message via a notification output by the communication application).
Sharifi may not explicitly disclose in response to determining that the topic of the third message has a threshold level of relevancy to the first topic of the first message and determining that the first notification for the first message has been displayed, suppressing the display of a new notification for the third message, wherein the suppression includes inhibiting a repeat of the content of the first notification or
causing the system to: generate a modified notification that is different than the first notification, the modified notification includes a portion of the third message and a portion of the first message, wherein the modified notification does not include the entire message of the first message or the third message, and wherein the modified notification excludes content from the second message, and cause a display of the modified version of the notification that is different than the first notification; and causing a display of a modified version of the notification for the first message, wherein the modified version of the notification includes at least a portion of the third message and at least a portion of the first message, wherein the modified version of the notification does not include the entire message of the first message or the third message, and
wherein the modified version of the notification excludes content from the second message.
However, Cohen discloses in response to determining that the topic of the third message has a threshold level of relevancy to the first topic of the first message and determining that the first message has been displayed (para. [0005] determine whether any of a set of previously received electronic messages are related to the first electronic message. The relatedness of any message can be based on message similarity, or message feature similarity. [0045]… Classification logic 230 include rules, conditions, associations, classification models, or other criteria, for comparing the features of different messages and determining a probability that two or more messages are related and thus part of a message thread…a feature of the first message, such as a feature characterizing the topic or subject matter of the message, may be identified and compared to a corresponding feature of the historical message (i.e., a feature characterizing the topic or subject matter of the historical message). Based on the similarity, the first message and the historical message may be determined to be (or not to be) related and thus part of a message thread, where a number of corresponding features are sufficiently similar, which may be determined using a similarity threshold which may specify, for instance, a number of features necessary to be identical and/or degree(s) of variance in feature values that are permissible in order for two corresponding features to be determined as sufficiently similar (and thus members of a message thread). [0050] message relevance determiner 266 may use relevance logic
235 to examine the email thread, and messages within the email thread, to determine if they satisfy a relevance threshold. If the message satisfies the relevance threshold, the message relevance determiner 266 tags the message, or particular message feature(s) relied on for the relevance
determination, as relevant with a type of relevance identifier. The message 300 of FIG. 3 was sent at 8:08 a.m. from a person (Ido) with the alias idop@example.com. The message 300 has the subject line “BIG PROJECT” and is addressed to a person with an abbreviated alias “ranber”. The message content 302 is shown in a display area 304. Immediately above the display area 304 is a notification bar 306 with an exemplary notification “This email appears to be part of a thread [View Threadv]”);
causing a display of a modified version for the first message, wherein the modified version o includes at least a portion of the third message and at least a portion of the first message (para. [0016] …present or highlight emails, summaries of emails, or portions of emails that are determined to be relevant to a user based upon a user's context, the nature of the information itself, and rules or logic indicating what information is likely considered relevant by the user. [0066] display of column 326, a relevance summary snippet 328 is shown with the snippet “the performance isn't good enough” generated from message B. As an example, the user might have specifically indicated that any messages related to performance should be considered relevant. Message relevance determiner 266 would then have tagged the message as relevant, and optionally created a summary snippet to highlight the performance aspect of the message to the user. A first exemplary summary snippet 330 “Ran, you should track the performance . . . ” is displayed, generated from message C. Message C (and snippet 330) might be determined to be relevant because it is addressed to “Ran”, because it is coming from Ran's supervisor (“idop”) and/or because it relates to performance…),
wherein the modified version of at least a portion of the third message and at least a portion of the first message, wherein the modified version does not include the entire message of the first message or the third message (para. [0066] display of column 326, a relevance summary snippet 328 is shown with the snippet “the performance isn't good enough” generated from message B. As an example, the user might have specifically indicated that any messages related to performance should be considered relevant. Message relevance determiner 266 would then have tagged the message as relevant, and optionally created a summary snippet to highlight the performance aspect of the message to the user. A first exemplary summary snippet 330 “Ran, you should track the performance . . . ” is displayed, generated from message C. Message C (and snippet 330) might be determined to be relevant because it is addressed to “Ran”, because it is coming from Ran's supervisor (“idop”) and/or because it relates to performance…),
wherein the modified version excludes content from the second message (para. [0050] If the message satisfies the relevance threshold, the message relevance determiner 266 tags the message, or particular message feature(s) relied on for the relevance determination, as relevant with a type of relevance identifier. If a message fails to satisfy the relevance threshold, the message relevance determiner 266 may tag the message as not relevant. Messages tagged as not relevant are clustered and hidden from the user)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Sharifi and include in response to determining that the topic of the third message has a threshold level of relevancy to the first topic of the first message and determining that the first message has been displayed, causing the system to: generate a modified notification that is different than the first notification, the modified notification includes a portion of the third message and a portion of the first message, wherein the modified notification does not include the entire message of the first message or the third message, and wherein the modified notification excludes content from the second message, and cause a display of the modified version of the notification that is different than the first notification; and causing a display of a modified version of the notification for the first message, wherein the modified version of the notification includes at least a portion of the third message and at least a portion of the first message, wherein the modified version of the notification does not include the entire message of the first message or the third message, and wherein the modified version of the notification excludes content from the second message using the teaching of Cohen. One would have been motivated to do so in order to facilitate presenting to the user aspects of enhanced or personalized message content, such as relevant messages in a thread.
Sharifi in view of Cohen may not explicitly disclose causing a display of a first notification, notifying a receipt of the first message, causing a display of a second notification, notifying a receipt of the second message, causing the system to: generate a modified notification that is different than the first notification, causing a display of a modified version for the first message, that is different than the first and modified version notifications.
However, Nowakowski discloses causing a display of a first notification, notifying a receipt of the first message (para. [0031] The process 300 begins by proceeding from beginning step 301 to step 302 when an initial electronic message notification is received on a user's mobile device 110 inviting the user to a calendar event);
Causing a display of a second notification, notifying a receipt of the second message (para. [0032] In step 303, a second electronic message notification is received indicating that an attendee has accepted their invitation to the calendar event);
causing the system to: generate a modified notification that is different than the first notification (para. [0025] if the initial notification is a confirmation that an item order has been placed, the portion that is included in the single notification can be the order number, and if the subsequent notification indicates the item has been shipped, the portion from the subsequent notification that is included in the single notification can be the shipping tracking number);
cause a display of the modified notification that is different than the first notification (para. [0025] if the initial notification is a confirmation that an item order has been placed, the portion that is included in the single notification can be the order number, and if the subsequent notification indicates the item has been shipped, the portion from the subsequent notification that is included in the single notification can be the shipping tracking number. [0026] the single notification is provided by displaying the subsequent notification, and removing the initial notification from display. In such cases where a subsequent notification is provided for display as the single notification in place of the initial notification) and;
modified notifications ([AB] providing a single notification for display in an application from multiple received notifications are provided. In one aspect, a method includes receiving a first notification for an application and receiving a second notification for the application subsequent to the first notification, and analyzing content of the first notification and content of the second notification. The method also includes determining, based on the analysis, whether the second notification is related to the first notification, and providing, for display, a single notification includes at least a portion of the content of the first notification and at least a portion of the content of the second notification when the second notification is related to the first notification. Systems and machine-readable media are also provided. Para. [0015] when a person is invited to a meeting by receiving a first notification requesting attendance at the meeting, the first notification for the request to attend the meeting is displayed. When a second notification confirming acceptance of the meeting request is received, the first notification is replaced with a single, status notification combining the relevant portions of the first and second notifications. The status notification displays that the person has accepted the meeting request, along with relevant information from the first notification. When a third notification is received indicating that another user proposed a new time for the meeting, the status notification is updated with the relevant information from the third notification regarding the proposed new time for the meeting…[0028] The updated single notification includes at least a portion of the content of the initial notification, at least a portion of the content of the additional subsequent notifications, and, if relevant, at least a portion of the content of the first subsequent notification).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Sharifi in view of Cohen and causing a display of a first notification, notifying a receipt of the first message, causing a display of a second notification, notifying a receipt of the second message, causing the system to: generate a modified notification that is different than the first notification, causing a display of a modified version for the first message, that is different than the first and modified notifications using the teaching of Nowakowski. One would have been motivated to do so in order to generate notifications based on an initial notification and subsequent notification such that the notification can be a new notification combining content from the initial notification and content from the subsequent notification.
Regarding claims 2, 9 and 16, claim 1 is incorporated. Sharifi further discloses wherein the first topic pertains to a question, and wherein the topic of the third message pertains to an answer to the question, wherein the first notification displays a graphical element indicating that the first message is a question, wherein the modified version of the notification displays a graphical element indicating that the third message is the answer to the question (para. [0033, [0044]-[0045] [0055] and Figs 3, 6-9, the computing device may utilize the content of one or both of the messages to determine whether the later message is responsive to the previous message. For example only, if the previous message includes an interrogative (how, why, what, which, where, etc.) or a punctuation mark associated with a question (such as a question mark), it may be reasonable to presume that the later message is responsive to the previous message).
Regarding claims 3, 10 and 17, claim 1 is incorporated. Sharifi may not explicitly disclose generating a new notification in response to receiving a new message pertaining to the second topic, wherein the new notification displays the first topic, the second topic, at least a portion of the first message, and at least a portion of the new message. However, Cohen discloses generating a new notification in response to receiving a new message pertaining to the second topic, wherein the new notification displays the first topic, the second topic, at least a portion of the first message, and at least a portion of the new message (para [0064]-[0066] display columns 324 and 326. Column 326 displays information, for example, that is surfaced as relevant information. In the exemplary display of column 326, a relevance summary snippet 328 is shown with the snippet “the performance isn't good enough” generated from message B. As an example, the user might have specifically indicated that any messages related to performance should be considered relevant. Message relevance determiner 266 would then have tagged the message as relevant, and optionally created a summary snippet to highlight the performance aspect of the message to the user. Similarly, in the exemplary display of column 324, other message information that is determined to be relevant or supplemental information that is identified can be displayed. A first exemplary summary snippet 330 “Ran, you should track the performance . . . ” is displayed, generated from message C. Message C (and snippet 330) might be determined to be relevant because it is addressed to “Ran”, because it is coming from Ran's supervisor (“idop”) and/or because it relates to performance It should be noted that, instead of snippets 328 and 330, more complete portions of the message might be displayed, or even the entire message. In some embodiments, some form of highlighting (such as bold text, colored text, or other indicators) may be used to indicate why the message, or portion of the message, was determined to be relevant. Column 324 also displays identified supplemental information 332)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Sharifi and include generating a new notification in response to receiving a new message pertaining to the second topic, wherein the new notification displays the first topic, the second topic, at least a portion of the first message, and at least a portion of the new message using the teaching of Cohen. One would have been motivated to do so in order to facilitate presenting to the user aspects of enhanced or personalized message content, such as relevant messages in a thread.
Regarding claims 6, 13 and 20, claim 1 is incorporated. Sharifi discloses
determining that messages exchanged on the thread are directed to a subset of participants of the set of participants (see Figs.3 and 6-8). Sharif may not explicitly disclose in response to determining that messages exchanged on the thread are directed to the subset of participants for a predetermined number of messages, updating the modified notification to display graphical representations indicating at least one sender and at least one recipient of the messages exchanged on the thread are directed to the subset of participants. However, Cohen discloses in response to determining that messages exchanged on the thread are directed to the subset of participants for a predetermined number of messages, updating the modified notification to display graphical representations indicating at least one sender and at least one recipient of the messages exchanged on the thread are directed to the subset of participants (see Figs. 4 and 6 and para [0078]-[0083])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Sharifi and include in response to determining that messages exchanged on the thread are directed to the subset of participants for a predetermined number of messages, updating the modified notification to display graphical representations indicating at least one sender and at least one recipient of the messages exchanged on the thread are directed to the subset of participants using the teaching of Cohen. One would have been motivated to do so in order to facilitate presenting to the user aspects of enhanced or personalized message content, such as relevant messages in a thread.
Regarding claims 7 and 14, claim 1 is incorporated. Sharifi may not explicitly discloses wherein a second notification includes a description of the first topic and a description of the second topic, wherein the description of the first topic is selectable for causing the second notification to expand in size to show content of the first message, wherein the description of the second topic is selectable for causing the second notification to expand in size to show content of the second message, wherein a selection of the content of the first message that is displayed within an expanded version of the second notification causes a device displaying the second notification to transition from a first operating state that does not display the thread to a second operating state that displays messages pertaining to the first topic, wherein a selection of the content of the second message that is displayed within the expanded version of the second notification causes the device displaying the second notification to transition from the first operating state that does not display the thread to the second operating state that displays messages pertaining to the second topic. However, Cohen discloses wherein a second notification includes a description of the first topic and a description of the second topic, wherein the description of the first topic is selectable for causing the second notification to expand in size to show content of the first message, wherein the description of the second topic is selectable for causing the second notification to expand in size to show content of the second message, wherein a selection of the content of the first message that is displayed within an expanded version of the second notification causes a device displaying the second notification to transition from a first operating state that does not display the thread to a second operating state that displays messages pertaining to the first topic, wherein a selection of the content of the second message that is displayed within the expanded version of the second notification causes the device displaying the second notification to transition from the first operating state that does not display the thread to the second operating state that displays messages pertaining to the second topic (see Figs. 4 and 6 and para [0078]-[0083]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Sharifi and include wherein a second notification includes a description of the first topic and a description of the second topic, wherein the description of the first topic is selectable for causing the second notification to expand in size to show content of the first message, wherein the description of the second topic is selectable for causing the second notification to expand in size to show content of the second message, wherein a selection of the content of the first message that is displayed within an expanded version of the second notification causes a device displaying the second notification to transition from a first operating state that does not display the thread to a second operating state that displays messages pertaining to the first topic, wherein a selection of the content of the second message that is displayed within the expanded version of the second notification causes the device displaying the second notification to transition from the first operating state that does not display the thread to the second operating state that displays messages pertaining to the second topic using the teaching of Cohen. One would have been motivated to do so in order to facilitate presenting to the user aspects of enhanced or personalized message content, such as relevant messages in a thread.
Allowable Subject Matter
9. Claims 4-5,11-12 and 18-19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claims, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
10. 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.
11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kidest Mendaye whose telephone number is (571)272-2603. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday 7:00 am-5:00pm EST. 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, Ario Etienne can be reached on (571) 272-4001. 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.
03/02//2026
/KIDEST MENDAYE/
Examiner, Art Unit 2457
/ARIO ETIENNE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2457