CTNF 18/646,167 CTNF 86559 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claims 1-18 are pending for examination. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA) 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 1-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cary et al. US Pub 2015/0350146 (hereafter Cary) in view of Acharya et al. US Patent 8,965,986 (hereafter Archarya) and further in view of Lecesne et al. US Pub 2023/0318999 (hereafter Lecesne) . As per claim 1, Cary teaches the invention substantially as claimed including a An information handling system comprising: at least one processor; and a memory; wherein the information handling system is configured to: receive information regarding a notification for a particular user of a plurality of users, wherein each user of the plurality of users is associated with one or more endpoint devices capable of receiving notifications (para[0069-0070, 0079, 0225, 0228], coordinating device receives a message to be forwarded to one or more devices associated with a same user account). Cary does not explicitly teach determine a particular endpoint device, wherein the particular endpoint device is a most recently used one of the one or more endpoint devices associated with the particular user; transmit the notification to the particular endpoint device; and in response to a non-acknowledgment of the notification, transmit the notification to a different endpoint device of the one or more endpoint devices associated with the particular user. However, Archarya teaches determine a particular endpoint device, wherein the particular endpoint device is a most recently used one of the one or more endpoint devices associated with the particular user; transmit the notification to the particular endpoint device (col 1, line 25-36, col 4, line 11-56, select a user device among the devices, which was used most recently, then send the message to the selected user device). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Archarya’s teaching to Cary’s invention in order to provide a method to send an urgent message to a user, the user being associated with devices, and the device that is most likely to elicit a response is selected based on the state and usage patterns of the user device, which is used to more accurately reflect which user device the user is currently using (col 3, line 45-51col 4, line 1-10). Cary and Archarya do not explicitly teach and in response to a non-acknowledgment of the notification, transmit the notification to a different endpoint device of the one or more endpoint devices associated with the particular user. However, Lecesne teaches in response to a non-acknowledgment of the notification, transmit the notification to a different endpoint device of the one or more endpoint devices associated with the particular user (para[0057], the processing system attempt to route an urgent message to a first endpoint device of a user, and when the first endpoint user does not respond, then the system attempt to route the urgent message to a second endpoint device of the same user). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Lecesne’s teaching to Cary and Archarya’s invention in order to provide a method for validating and routing messages in digital environments that minimizes disruptions where it takes into account the capabilities of a message recipient’s endpoint devices as well as any user impairments that might make certain modalities of delivery more desirable than other modalities (para[0003, 0078]). As per claim 2, Cary, Archarya and Lecesne teach the information handling system of claim 1, and Cary teaches wherein the notification relates to installation of an update (para[0246], the new message is related to software update availability). As per claim 3, Cary teaches wherein the one or more endpoint devices includes at least one laptop and at least one smartphone (para[0004, 0084], FIG. 1 and 3, laptop and smartphone). As per claim 4, Cary teaches further configured to: receive information regarding a plurality of notifications for the particular user; determine that one of the plurality of notifications is duplicative of another one of the plurality of notifications; and suppress the one of the plurality of notifications from being transmitted (para[0004, 0057, 0273, 0322], coordinating device detects message to be transmitted to different devices of a user, and redundant alerts for the same message are inhibited, thus the duplicative notifications are suppressed). As per claim 5, Cary teaches further configured to: prior to receiving the information regarding the notification, receive a subscription request from the particular user (para[0028, 0120, 0126, 0260-0263, 0266], subscriber app is identified to process the message, where the coordinating device is associated with a same account). As per claim 6, Acharya teaches wherein transmitting the notification to the particular endpoint device comprises communicating with an on-the-box service executing at the particular endpoint device (col 3, line 57-67, a process executed on a user device that collects information about the how the user device accesses the application and communicate with a server, where the process can be a component integrated into the application or a web-browser plugin). As per claim 7, it is a method claim of claim 1 above, thus it is rejected for the same rationale. As per claim 8, it is a method claim of claim 2 above, thus it is rejected for the same rationale. As per claim 9, it is a method claim of claim 3 above, thus it is rejected for the same rationale. As per claim 10, it is a method claim of claim 4 above, thus it is rejected for the same rationale. As per claim 11, it is a method claim of claim 5 above, thus it is rejected for the same rationale. As per claim 12, it is a method claim of claim 6 above, thus it is rejected for the same rationale. As per claim 13, it is an article of manufacture claim of claim 1 above, thus it is rejected for the same rationale. As per claim 14, it is an article of manufacture claim of claim 2 above, thus it is rejected for the same rationale. As per claim 15, it is an article of manufacture claim of claim 3 above, thus it is rejected for the same rationale. As per claim 16, it is an article of manufacture claim of claim 4 above, thus it is rejected for the same rationale. As per claim 17, it is an article of manufacture claim of claim 5 above, thus it is rejected for the same rationale. As per claim 18, it is an article of manufacture claim of claim 6 above, thus it is rejected for the same rationale . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Allen et al. US Pub 2016/0301634 teaches a method for controlling a delivery of messages to designated computing devices. A messaging server receives from a user message delivery information used to create a profile for each of the user's registered computing devices which contains details of criteria as to whether the registered computing device is able to receive a message from a sender. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAMMY EUNHYE LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-7773. The examiner can normally be reached Mon, Tues, Thur 9PM-4PM. 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, Meng-Ai An can be reached at (571)272-3756. 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. /TAMMY E LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2195 Application/Control Number: 18/646,167 Page 2 Art Unit: 2195 Application/Control Number: 18/646,167 Page 4 Art Unit: 2195 Application/Control Number: 18/646,167 Page 6 Art Unit: 2195 Application/Control Number: 18/646,167 Page 7 Art Unit: 2195
Prosecution Insights