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 .
Response to Arguments
101 Rejection: Applicant's arguments filed 05/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues “automatically populate one or more fields of a contact information graphical user interface (GUI) based on the context data and to include information of the contact profile” integrates the judicial exception into a practical application. Examiner disagrees because this limitation is insignificant-extra solution activity tangentially related to the invention.
103 Rejection: Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been fully considered and are
persuasive. Upon further consideration, and in view of applicant’s amendments, a new grounds of
rejection is made in view of newly cited reference Abbott.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The following is Examiner's analysis of the claimed invention under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (PEG)
STEP 1 ls the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of matter? Yes. Claim 1 recites a machine (device), claim 11 recites a machine (system), and claim 17 recites a process (method).
STEP2A Prone one: Does The Claim Recite An Abstract Idea, Law Of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon? Yes. Claim 1 (and similar claims 11 and 17) recites “generate a contact recommendation based at least in part on the context data” which falls within the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas. The step of “generating a contact recommendation” covers performance of the limitation in the mind, and therefore, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 1 (and similar claims 11 and 17) recites “configure a contact profile based at least in part on the contact recommendation” which falls within the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas. For example, a person using mental processes could write a description (i.e., profile) of a contact. Since the step of “configuring a contact profile” covers performance of the limitation in the mind or by a person using pen and paper, the claim recites an abstract idea.
STEP2A Prone two: Does The Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate The Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application? No. Claim 1 recites “a client device comprising: one or more modules implementable at least in part in hardware of the client device to” which amounts to merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer.
Claim 11 recites “a system comprising: one or more modules implementable at least in part in hardware of the system to cause the system to” which amounts to merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer.
Claim 1 (and similar claims 11 and 17) recites “automatically populate one or more fields of a contact information graphical user interface (GUI) based on the context data and to include information of the contact profile” which is insignificant-extra solution activity tangentially related to the invention. Adding a final step of “automatically populating one or more fields” does not add a meaningful limitation to the judicial exception, and therefore, the additional element is insignificant-extra solution activity.
Claims 1 and 17 recite “detect a contact data trigger to perform a contact operation; obtain context data pertaining to one or more of the contact data trigger or the contact operation, the context data including an indication of a contextual relationship between a user of the client device and a contact associated with the contact operation” which is mere necessary data gathering.
Claim 11 recites “process data exchanged between a user of a client device and a contact candidate associated with the user to extract context data pertaining to the contact candidate, the context data including an indication of a contextual relationship between a user of the client device and the contact candidate” which is mere necessary data gathering.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. The courts have determined merely including instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer does not qualify as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with a judicial exception (See Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225-26, 110 USPQ2d at 1984).
The courts have determined mere data gathering to not be enough to qualify as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with a judicial exception (See CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011)).
Claim 1 (and similar claims 11 and 17) recites “automatically populate one or more fields of a contact information graphical user interface (GUI) based on the context data and to include information of the contact profile” which is transmitting data over a network. The courts have determined transmitting data over a network is well‐understood, routine, and conventional functionality when claimed in a merely generic manner (see Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362).
There is no indication that the elements of the claim, individually nor in combination, integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
For the reasons above, claims 1, 11, and 17 are rejected as being directed to nonpatentable subject matter under §101. This rejection applies equally to the dependent claims 2-10, 12-16, 18-20. The additional limitations of the dependent claims are addressed briefly below:
Regarding claim 2
STEP 1 ls the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of matter? Yes. The claim recites a machine (device).
STEP2A Prone one: Does The Claim Recite An Abstract Idea, Law Of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon? Yes. The claim inherits the abstract idea of the parent claim.
STEP2A Prone two: Does The Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate The Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application? No. The claim recites “wherein the contact data trigger comprises a communication from a contact associated with the contact profile” which is mere necessary data gathering.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. The courts have determined mere data gathering to not be enough to qualify as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with a judicial exception (See CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011)).
Regarding claim 3
STEP 1 ls the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of matter? Yes. The claim recites a machine (device).
STEP2A Prone one: Does The Claim Recite An Abstract Idea, Law Of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon? Yes. The claim inherits the abstract idea of the parent claim.
STEP2A Prone two: Does The Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate The Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application? No. The claim recites “wherein the one or more modules are implementable by the client device to obtain the context data via text extraction from a communication from a contact associated with the contact profile” which is mere necessary data gathering.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. The courts have determined mere data gathering to not be enough to qualify as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with a judicial exception (See CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011)).
Regarding claim 4
STEP 1 ls the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of matter? Yes. The claim recites a machine (device).
STEP2A Prone one: Does The Claim Recite An Abstract Idea, Law Of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon? Yes. The claim inherits the abstract idea of the parent claim.
STEP2A Prone two: Does The Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate The Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application? No. The claim recites “wherein the communication comprises a text message, and wherein the one or more modules are implementable by the client device to extract the context data from text of the text message” which is mere necessary data gathering.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. The courts have determined mere data gathering to not be enough to qualify as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with a judicial exception (See CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011)).
Regarding claim 5
STEP 1 ls the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of matter? Yes. The claim recites a machine (device).
STEP2A Prone one: Does The Claim Recite An Abstract Idea, Law Of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon? Yes. The claim inherits the abstract idea of the parent claim.
STEP2A Prone two: Does The Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate The Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application? No. The claim recites “wherein the communication comprises a voice call, and wherein the one or more modules are implementable by the client device to extract the context data from one or more of voice data of the voice call or a text transcript of the voice call” which is mere necessary data gathering.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. The courts have determined mere data gathering to not be enough to qualify as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with a judicial exception (See CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011)).
Regarding claim 6
STEP 1 ls the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of matter? Yes. The claim recites a machine (device).
STEP2A Prone one: Does The Claim Recite An Abstract Idea, Law Of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon? Yes. The claim inherits the abstract idea of the parent claim.
STEP2A Prone two: Does The Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate The Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application? No. The claim recites “wherein the contextual relationship comprises one or more of an indication of a personal relationship, a professional relationship, location information, or message intent data associated with a communication between the user of the client device and a contact associated with the contact operation” which is mere necessary data gathering.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. The courts have determined mere data gathering to not be enough to qualify as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with a judicial exception (See CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011)).
Regarding claim 7
STEP 1 ls the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of matter? Yes. The claim recites a machine (device).
STEP2A Prone one: Does The Claim Recite An Abstract Idea, Law Of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon? Yes. The claim inherits the abstract idea of the parent claim.
STEP2A Prone two: Does The Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate The Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application? No. The claim recites “wherein the one or more modules are implementable by the client device to obtain the context data via a determination of a location of the client device when the contact data trigger occurs” which is mere necessary data gathering.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. The courts have determined mere data gathering to not be enough to qualify as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with a judicial exception (See CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011)).
Regarding claim 8
STEP 1 ls the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of matter? Yes. The claim recites a machine (device).
STEP2A Prone one: Does The Claim Recite An Abstract Idea, Law Of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon? Yes. The claim inherits the abstract idea of the parent claim.
STEP2A Prone two: Does The Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate The Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application? No. The claim recites “wherein the one or more modules are implementable by the client device to obtain the context data via a determination of an application via which the context data is obtained” which is mere necessary data gathering.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. The courts have determined mere data gathering to not be enough to qualify as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with a judicial exception (See CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011)).
Regarding claim 9
STEP 1 ls the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of matter? Yes. The claim recites a machine (device).
STEP2A Prone one: Does The Claim Recite An Abstract Idea, Law Of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon? Yes. The claim inherits the abstract idea of the parent claim.
STEP2A Prone two: Does The Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate The Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application? No. The claim recites “wherein the one or more modules are implementable by the client device to tag the context data with a date on which the context data is extracted” which is mere necessary data gathering.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. The courts have determined mere data gathering to not be enough to qualify as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with a judicial exception (See CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011)).
Regarding claim 10
STEP 1 ls the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of matter? Yes. The claim recites a machine (device).
STEP2A Prone one: Does The Claim Recite An Abstract Idea, Law Of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon? Yes. The claim inherits the abstract idea of the parent claim.
STEP2A Prone two: Does The Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate The Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application? No. The claim recites “wherein the one or more modules are implementable by the client device to configure the contact profile to include at least some of the context data” which is mere necessary data gathering.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. The courts have determined mere data gathering to not be enough to qualify as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with a judicial exception (See CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011)).
Regarding claim 12
STEP 1 ls the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of matter? Yes. The claim recites a machine (system).
STEP2A Prone one: Does The Claim Recite An Abstract Idea, Law Of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon? Yes. The claim inherits the abstract idea of the parent claim.
STEP2A Prone two: Does The Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate The Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application? No. The claim recites “wherein the data exchanged between the user of the client device and the contact candidate comprises a messaging interaction between the user of the client device and the contact candidate” which is mere necessary data gathering.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. The courts have determined mere data gathering to not be enough to qualify as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with a judicial exception (See CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011)).
Regarding claim 13
STEP 1 ls the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of matter? Yes. The claim recites a machine (system).
STEP2A Prone one: Does The Claim Recite An Abstract Idea, Law Of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon? Yes. The claim inherits the abstract idea of the parent claim.
STEP2A Prone two: Does The Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate The Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application? No. The claim recites “wherein the contextual relationship comprises one or more of an indication of a personal relationship, a professional relationship, location information, or message intent data associated with a communication between the user of the client device and the contact candidate” which is mere necessary data gathering.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. The courts have determined mere data gathering to not be enough to qualify as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with a judicial exception (See CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011)).
Regarding claim 14
STEP 1 ls the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of matter? Yes. The claim recites a machine (system).
STEP2A Prone one: Does The Claim Recite An Abstract Idea, Law Of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon? Yes. The claim inherits the abstract idea of the parent claim.
STEP2A Prone two: Does The Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate The Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application? No. The claim recites “wherein the contextual relationship comprises one or more of an indication of a personal relationship, a professional relationship, location information, or message intent data associated with a communication between the user of the client device and the contact candidate” which is mere necessary data gathering.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. The courts have determined mere data gathering to not be enough to qualify as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with a judicial exception (See CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011)).
Regarding claim 15
STEP 1 ls the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of matter? Yes. The claim recites a machine (system).
STEP2A Prone one: Does The Claim Recite An Abstract Idea, Law Of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon? Yes. The claim inherits the abstract idea of the parent claim.
STEP2A Prone two: Does The Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate The Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application? No. The claim recites “wherein the one or more modules are implementable by the system to tag the context data with a date on which the context data is extracted” which is mere necessary data gathering.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. The courts have determined mere data gathering to not be enough to qualify as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with a judicial exception (See CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011)).
Regarding claim 16
STEP 1 ls the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of matter? Yes. The claim recites a machine (system).
STEP2A Prone one: Does The Claim Recite An Abstract Idea, Law Of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon? Yes. The claim inherits the abstract idea of the parent claim.
STEP2A Prone two: Does The Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate The Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application? No. The claim recites “wherein the one or more modules are implementable by the system to tag the context data based at least in part on an application via which the data is exchanged between the user of a client device and the contact candidate” which is mere necessary data gathering.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. The courts have determined mere data gathering to not be enough to qualify as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with a judicial exception (See CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011)).
Regarding claim 18
STEP 1 ls the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of matter? Yes. The claim recites a process (method).
STEP2A Prone one: Does The Claim Recite An Abstract Idea, Law Of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon? Yes. The claim inherits the abstract idea of the parent claim.
STEP2A Prone two: Does The Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate The Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application? No. The claim recites “wherein the contextual relationship comprises one or more of an indication of a personal relationship, a professional relationship, location information, or message intent data associated with a communication between the user of the client device and a contact associated with the contact operation” which is mere necessary data gathering.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. The courts have determined mere data gathering to not be enough to qualify as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with a judicial exception (See CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011)).
Regarding claim 19
STEP 1 ls the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of matter? Yes. The claim recites a process (method).
STEP2A Prone one: Does The Claim Recite An Abstract Idea, Law Of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon? Yes. The claim inherits the abstract idea of the parent claim.
STEP2A Prone two: Does The Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate The Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application? No. The claim recites “wherein the context data comprises an indication of a location of the client device when the contact data trigger occurs” which is mere necessary data gathering.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. The courts have determined mere data gathering to not be enough to qualify as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with a judicial exception (See CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011)).
Regarding claim 20
STEP 1 ls the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of matter? Yes. The claim recites a process (method).
STEP2A Prone one: Does The Claim Recite An Abstract Idea, Law Of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon? Yes. The claim inherits the abstract idea of the parent claim.
STEP2A Prone two: Does The Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate The Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application? No. The claim recites “wherein configuring the contact profile includes at least some of the context data” which is mere necessary data gathering.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. The courts have determined mere data gathering to not be enough to qualify as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with a judicial exception (See CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011)).
Taken alone, the additional elements of the dependent claims do not amount to significantly
more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an
ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken
individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a
computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barraclough et al (US 20110239158 A1) hereafter Barraclough in view of Schigel et al (US 20080097822 A1) hereafter Schigel in view of Abbott (US 20100262928 A1) hereafter Abbott
Regarding claim 1, Barraclough teaches a client device comprising: one or more modules implementable at least in part in hardware of the client device to: detect a contact data trigger to perform a contact operation (Para 0085, communication history on the device)(“communication history” is a species of “contact data trigger”); obtain context data pertaining to one or more of the contact data trigger or the contact operation, the context data including an indication of a contextual relationship between a user of the client device and a contact associated with the contact operation (Para 0068, The contextual associations section 309 enables the note manager 103 to associate information such as time, people, location, reminders, status, and soft reminders with the polymorphic note)(“contextual associations” is analogous to “context data”); generate a contact recommendation based at least in part on the context data (Para 0085, the note manager 103 may suggest the friends to contact based on a communication history on the device).
Barraclough does not appear to explicitly teach configure a contact profile based at least in part on the contact recommendation. In analogous art, Schigel teaches configure a contact profile based at least in part on the contact recommendation (Para 0145, The frame environment displays information about the user based on the user's profile data). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Barraclough to include the teaching of Schigel. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to implement this modification in order to recommend social media content, as taught by Schigel (Para 0043, The connectivity system 30 may also monitor contacts, content or commerce provided by or facilitated by the content servers 50 in response to the actions of a plurality of users and proactively provide contact, content or commerce recommendations to the user based on the user's profile data).
Barraclough in view of Schigel does not appear to explicitly teach automatically populate one or more fields of a contact information graphical user interface (GUI) based on the context data and to include information of the contact profile.
In analogous art, Abbott teaches automatically populate one or more fields of a contact information graphical user interface (GUI) based on the context data and to include information of the contact profile (Para 0117, extract a contact from the text message inbox and add to the contact list). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Barraclough in view of Schigel to include the teaching of Abbott. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to implement this modification in order to a smart graphical user interface, as taught by Abbott (Para 0001, The present application relates to a smart object based graphical user interface for a mobile terminal having a touch panel display and the method for operating the same).
Regarding claim 2, Barraclough in view of Schigel in further in view of Abbott teaches the client device of claim 1, wherein the contact data trigger comprises a communication from a contact associated with the contact profile (Barraclough, Para 0085, the note manager 103 may suggest the friends to contact based on a communication history on the device).
Regarding claim 3, Barraclough in view of Schigel in further in view of Abbott teaches the client device of claim 1, wherein the one or more modules are implementable by the client device to obtain the context data via text extraction from a communication from a contact associated with the contact profile (Barraclough, Para 0066, the text input is parsed to identify information such as soft reminders, web links, phone numbers, locations, e-mail addresses, and the like).
Regarding claim 4, Barraclough in view of Schigel in further in view of Abbott teaches the client device of claim 3, wherein the communication comprises a text message, and wherein the one or more modules are implementable by the client device to extract the context data from text of the text message (Barraclough, Para 0066, the text input is parsed to identify information such as soft reminders, web links, phone numbers, locations, e-mail addresses, and the like).
Regarding claim 5, Barraclough in view of Schigel in further in view of Abbott teaches the client device of claim 3, wherein the communication comprises a voice call, and wherein the one or more modules are implementable by the client device to extract the context data from one or more of voice data of the voice call or a text transcript of the voice call (Barraclough, Para 0156, The memory 2051 stores various data including call incoming tone data and is capable of storing other data including music data received).
Regarding claim 6, Barraclough in view of Schigel in further in view of Abbott teaches the client device of claim 1, wherein the contextual relationship comprises one or more of an indication of a personal relationship, a professional relationship, location information, or message intent data associated with a communication between the user of the client device and a contact associated with the contact operation (Barraclough, Para 0085, the note manager 103 may suggest the friends to contact based on a communication history on the device, places to meet based on preferences of the contacts, time to meet based on calendar information).
Regarding claim 7, Barraclough in view of Schigel in further in view of Abbott teaches the client device of claim 1, wherein the one or more modules are implementable by the client device to obtain the context data via a determination of a location of the client device when the contact data trigger occurs (Barraclough, Para 0038, The soft reminder can then be triggered on detecting of contextual information that is related to the parsed subject).
Regarding claim 8, Barraclough in view of Schigel in further in view of Abbott teaches the client device of claim 1, wherein the one or more modules are implementable by the client device to obtain the context data via a determination of an application via which the context data is obtained (Barraclough, Para 0037, the system 100 monitors contextual information associated with a user's device).
Regarding claim 9, Barraclough in view of Schigel in further in view of Abbott teaches the client device of claim 1, wherein the one or more modules are implementable by the client device to tag the context data with a date on which the context data is extracted (Barraclough, Para 0091, The date information is stored, for instance, in either the note itself or in meta-data associated with the date).
Regarding claim 10, Barraclough in view of Schigel in further in view of Abbott teaches the client device of claim 1, wherein the one or more modules are implementable by the client device to configure the contact profile to include at least some of the context data (Barraclough, Para 0145, The frame environment displays information about the user based on the user's profile data).
Regarding claim 11, Barraclough teaches a system comprising: one or more modules implementable at least in part in hardware of the system to cause the system to: process data exchanged between a user of a client device and a contact candidate associated with the user to extract context data pertaining to the contact candidate, the context data including an indication of a contextual relationship between a user of the client device and the contact candidate(Para 0068, The contextual associations section 309 enables the note manager 103 to associate information such as time, people, location, reminders, status, and soft reminders with the polymorphic note)(“contextual associations” is analogous to “context data”); generate a contact recommendation based at least in part on the context data(Para 0085, the note manager 103 may suggest the friends to contact based on a communication history on the device).
Barraclough does not appear to explicitly teach configure a contact profile based at least in part on the contact recommendation. In analogous art, Schigel teaches configure a contact profile based at least in part on the contact recommendation (Para 0145, The frame environment displays information about the user based on the user's profile data). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Barraclough to include the teaching of Schigel. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to implement this modification in order to recommend social media content, as taught by Schigel (Para 0043, The connectivity system 30 may also monitor contacts, content or commerce provided by or facilitated by the content servers 50 in response to the actions of a plurality of users and proactively provide contact, content or commerce recommendations to the user based on the user's profile data).
Barraclough in view of Schigel does not appear to explicitly teach automatically populate one or more fields of a contact information graphical user interface (GUI) based on the context data and to include information of the contact profile.
In analogous art, Abbott teaches automatically populate one or more fields of a contact information graphical user interface (GUI) based on the context data and to include information of the contact profile (Para 0117, extract a contact from the text message inbox and add to the contact list). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Barraclough in view of Schigel to include the teaching of Abbott. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to implement this modification in order to a smart graphical user interface, as taught by Abbott (Para 0001, The present application relates to a smart object based graphical user interface for a mobile terminal having a touch panel display and the method for operating the same).
Regarding claim 12, Barraclough in view of Schigel in further in view of Abbott teaches the system of claim 11, wherein the data exchanged between the user of the client device and the contact candidate comprises a messaging interaction between the user of the client device and the contact candidate (Barraclough, Para 0085, the note manager 103 may suggest the friends to contact based on a communication history on the device).
Claim 13 recites a system claim corresponding to the device claim 6, and is analyzed and rejected accordingly.
Claim 14 recites a system claim corresponding to the device claim 6, and is analyzed and
rejected accordingly.
Claim 15 recites a system claim corresponding to the device claim 9, and is analyzed and rejected accordingly.
Regarding claim 16, Barraclough in view of Schigel in further in view of Abbott teaches the system of claim 11, wherein the one or more modules are implementable by the system to tag the context data based at least in part on an application via which the data is exchanged between the user of a client device and the contact candidate (Barraclough, Para 0091, The date information is stored, for instance, in either the note itself or in meta-data associated with the date).
Claim 17 is the method claim corresponding to the device claim 1, and is analyzed and rejected accordingly.
Claim 18 is the method claim corresponding to the device claim 6, and is analyzed and rejected accordingly.
Regarding claim 19, Barraclough in view of Schigel in further in view of Abbott teaches the method of claim 17, wherein the context data comprises an indication of a location of the client device when the contact data trigger occurs (Barraclough, Para 0038, The soft reminder can then be triggered on detecting of contextual information that is related to the parsed subject).
Regarding claim 20, Barraclough in view of Schigel in further in view of Abbott teaches the method of claim 17, wherein configuring the contact profile includes at least some of the context data (Barraclough, Para 0145, The frame environment displays information about the user based on the user's profile data).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Brooks Hale whose telephone number is 571-272-0160. The examiner can normally be reached 9am to 5pm 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, Sanjiv Shah can be reached on (571) 272-4098. 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.
/B.T.H./Examiner, Art Unit 2166
/KHANH B PHAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2166
Prosecution Insights