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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 4/2/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 4/2/2026 have been fully considered. Applicant argues the prior art fails to teach “updating…the respective confidence value using (i) a first factor corresponding to a time elapsed since a previous provision of the at least one of the plurality of messages” because Zappella discloses a value that tracks how many times a message has been sent (e.g. three times in the past week) and does not track how much time has elapsed since a previous message was transmitted (e.g., two days since the last message).
Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive as Zappella discloses the updating corresponding to a time elapsed since a previous provision of a message. For example, Zappella discloses the updating corresponding to a particular time period elapsed since a previous transmission of a message to a user (Zappella, col. 9:1-20, updating confidence value based on time within a “period of time following transmission of a message”; see also col. 10:43-67, col. 11:1-59).
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-2, 4-12, 14-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 10242381 to Zappella in view of US 20190189025 to Angelopoulos.
Regarding claim 1,
Zappella teaches a method of transmitting messages across networked environments, comprising:
determining, by one or more processors, a state associated with a user of a computing device, using an activity log identifying one or more actions recorded via the computing device towards achieving a behavior endpoint for the user (col. 8:1-16, col. 9:56-57, obtaining historical action of user; col. 4:40- 56, col. 5:65-67, col. 6:1-5, obtaining recorded user actions such as browsing activities, number of clicks);
for each candidate message of a plurality of messages, prior to selecting at least one of the plurality of messages for transmission:
generating, by the one or more processors, a respective confidence value indicating a predicted effectiveness of the candidate message on the user towards achieving the behavior endpoint by applying the state and the candidate message to a model (abstract, col. 8:1-20, 9:1-65 — col. 10:1-55, fig. 2, determination of values indicating estimated expectations based on user state, selection criteria);
updating, by the one or more processors, the respective confidence value using (i) a first factor corresponding to a time elapsed since a previous provision of at least one of the plurality of messages to the computing device (col. 9:1-25, fig. 1-2, updating based on elapsed times since previous messages; see also col. 3:15-55, col. 7:50-67, col. 8:1-31, col. 10:5-67, col. 11:1-59, figs. 1-2, updating based on number of previous messages withing a predetermined period of time; col. 9:1-25) and (ii) a second factor corresponding to at least one effectiveness pattern of previous messages tracked in the activity log (col. 3:30-67, ranking factor based on effectiveness of previous messages);
selecting, by the one or more processors, from the plurality of messages, a message based on the updated confidence value for the message and the behavior endpoint corresponding to at least one objective to be achieved by the user (col. 10:15-34, fig. 2A);
transmitting, by the one or more processors, the message to the computing device associated with the user (fig. 2A, col. 9:25-43, message transmission).
Zapella fails to teach but Angelopoulos teaches:
providing, by the one or more processors, a digital therapeutic application to a user to achieve a behavior endpoint corresponding to at least one objective to be achieved by the user (¶ 12, abstract, ¶ 1, 56, digital interventions via messaging for health and wellness interventions, e.g., smoking cessation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the teachings of Angelopoulos. The motivation to do so is that the teachings of Angelopoulos would have been advantageous in terms of helping users achieve health goals (Angelopoulos, abstract, ¶ 1, ¶ 56).
Regarding claim 2, 12,
Zappella teaches:
receiving, by the one or more processors, from the computing device, a response identifying one or more second actions performed by the user in response to presentation of the message; and updating, by the one or more processors, the state associated with the user, based on the one or more second actions identified in the response (col. 4:40-56, col. 5:65- 67, col. 6:1-5, col. 8:1-16, col. 9:1-25, fig. 2A, recording subsequent actions and updating based on the historical data).
Regarding claim 4, 14,
Zappella teaches:
removing, by the one or more processors, a subset of messages from selection from the plurality of messages, responsive to the state associated with the user not matching a selection criterion for each of the subset of messages (col. 8:1-16, col. 9:1-25, exclusion of messages responsive to user state and selection criterion).
Regarding claim 5, 15,
Zappella teaches:
refraining, by the one or more processors, from selecting any message from the plurality of messages, responsive to the updated second confidence value for each candidate message not satisfying a respective threshold (col. 8:1-16, col. 9:1-25, exclusion of messages responsive to user state and selection criterion; ranking/scoring thresholds).
Regarding claim 6, 16,
Zappella teaches:
wherein generating the respective confidence value further comprises generating the respective first confidence value, by applying a selection criterion specified for the candidate message to the model (col. 8:1-16, col. 9:1-25, selection criterion for messages).
Regarding claim 7, 17,
Zappella teaches:
wherein updating the respective confidence value further comprises identifying an update factor to be applied to the respective confidence value, based on the time elapsed since the previous provision of at least one of the plurality of messages to the computing device (col. 8:1-16, col. 9:1-25, factor including time elapsed; see also col. 1:1-30; col. 7:50-65).
Regarding claim 8, 18,
Zappella teaches:
wherein selecting the message further comprises selecting the message from the plurality of messages, responsive to the updated respective confidence value for the message satisfying a threshold specified for the message (col. 8:1-16, col. 9:1-25, exclusion of messages responsive to user state and selection criterion; ranking/scoring thresholds).
Regarding claim 9, 19,
Zappella teaches:
wherein transmitting the message further comprises transmitting the message to the computing device associated with the user, responsive to a current time being within a time window specified for the message (col. 1:15-30, col. 3:15-30 col. 11:1-5).
Regarding claim 10, 20,
Zappella teaches:
wherein the model is established using a training dataset comprising historical response data from a plurality of users to previously presented messages (col. 3:30-40, col. 8:1-16).
Claim 11 is addressed by similar rationale as claim 1.
Regarding claim 21-22,
Zapella teaches:
wherein the updated respective confidence value indicates a predicted effectiveness of the candidate message on the user towards achieving the behavior endpoint (fig. 2A, col. 3:30-67).
Zapella fails to teach but Angelopoulos teaches:
wherein the one or more actions recorded via the computing device correspond to one or more digital therapeutic activities (¶ 23; see also ¶ 12, abstract, ¶ 1, 56). Motivation to include Angelopoulos is the same as presented above.
Claim 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zappella, and Angelopoulos in view of US 20120204265 to Judge.
Regarding claim 3, 13,
Zapella fails to teach but Judge teaches:
maintaining, by the one or more processors, a plurality of message objects each including a set of executable instruction defining presentation of a corresponding message, and wherein selecting the message further comprises selecting, from the plurality of message objects, a message object with which to generate the message, based on the updated respective confidence value corresponding to the message (¶ 168-171, 205, claim 1, maintaining set of instructions which define presentation of a message based on trust/confidence value of message).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the teachings of Judge. The motivation to do so is that the teachings of Judge would have been advantageous in terms of facilitating message threat detection (Judge, ¶ 39).
CONCLUSION
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN J JAKOVAC whose telephone number is (571)270-5003. The examiner can normally be reached on 8-4 PM EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Oscar A. Louie can be reached on 572-270-1684. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RYAN J JAKOVAC/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2445
Prosecution Insights