DETAILED ACTION
This office action is responsive to the response filed 8/28/2025. The application contains claims 2-16, all examined and rejected.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement with references submitted 7/30/2024, 7/10/2024 have been considered and entered into the file.
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 2-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claims 1-16 is rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed inventions are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
While independent claims 2, 15 and 16 are each directed to a statutory category, it recites a series of steps pertaining to analyze received data to determent the data urgency value for providing alerts based on the determined urgency, which appears to be directed to an abstract idea (mental process).
Claims 2-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the instant application is directed to non-patentable subject matter. Specifically, the claims are directed toward at least one judicial exception without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The rationale for this determination is in accordance with the guidelines of USPTO, applies to all statutory categories, and is explained in detail below.
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, (1) it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, (2a) it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), and if so (2b), it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Examples of abstract ideas include certain methods of organizing human activities; a mental processes; and mathematical concepts, (2019 PEG)
STEP 1.
Per Step 1, the claims are determined to include manufacture, machine and process as in independent Claim 2, 15, and 16, and in the therefrom dependent claims. Therefore, the claims are directed to a statutory eligibility category.
At step 2A, prong 1, The invention is directed to analyze received data to determent the data urgency value for providing alerts based on the determined urgency based on different criteria which is akin to Mental Process (see Alice), As such, the claims include an abstract idea. When considering the limitations individually and as a whole the limitations directed to the abstract idea are:
“detecting an information item received from an external device;
determining whether the information item is relevant to an urgency value of an application alert included in a plurality of notification items; and
upon determining that the information item is relevant to the urgency value of the application alert, adjusting the urgency value of the application alert and incorporating content from the information item into the application alert;
in accordance with a determination that a context of the electronic device has changed, adjusting a predetermined threshold of the electronic device;
determining whether the adjusted urgency value of the first notification item satisfies the predetermined threshold; and
upon determining that the adjusted urgency value satisfies the predetermined threshold, providing an output including the application alert, the application alert including the incorporated content from the information item.” (Mental process, observation, evaluation and judgment).
The claim recites additional elements as
“A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing one or more programs configured to be executed by one or more processors of an electronic device, the one or more programs including instructions” (“Using a computer as a tool to perform a mental process”, MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C));
wherein the application alert includes a notification of an action to be taken by an application (description of data, which is directed to generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. It does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and did not add significantly more to the abstract idea).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The elements are recited at a high level of generality, i.e. a generic computing system performing generic functions including generic processing of data. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea. (2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance ("2019 PEG"). Thus, under Step 2A of the Mayo framework, the Examiner holds that the claims are directed to concepts identified as abstract.
STEP 2B.
Because the claims include one or more abstract ideas, the examiner now proceeds to Step 2B of the analysis, in which the examiner considers if the claims include individually or as an ordered combination limitations that are "significantly more" than the abstract idea itself. This includes analysis as to whether there is an improvement to either the "computer itself," "another technology," the "technical field," or significantly more than what is "well-understood, routine, or conventional" (WURC) in the related arts.
The instant application includes in Claim 1 additional steps to those deemed to be abstract idea(s).
When taken the steps individually, these steps are:
“A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing one or more programs configured to be executed by one or more processors of an electronic device, the one or more programs including instructions”, “An electronic device, comprising: one or more processors; a memory; and one or more programs, wherein the one or more programs are stored in the memory and configured to be executed by the one or more processors, the one or more programs including instructions” (“Using a computer as a tool to perform a mental process”, MPEP 2106.05(f)(2));
wherein the application alert includes a notification of an action to be taken by an application (description of data, which is directed to generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. It does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and did not add significantly more to the abstract idea).
In the instant case, Claim 1 is directed to above mentioned abstract idea. Technical functions such as receiving, and extracting are common and basic functions in computer technology. The individual limitations are recited at a high level and do not provide any specific technology or techniques to perform the functions claimed.
In addition, when the claims are taken as a whole, as an ordered combination, the combination of steps does not add "significantly more" by virtue of considering the steps as a whole, as an ordered combination. The instant application, therefore, still appears only to implement the abstract idea to the particular technological environments using what is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the related arts. The steps are still a combination made to the abstract idea. The additional steps only add to those abstract ideas using well understood and conventional functions, and the claims do not show improved ways of, for example, an unconventional non-routine functions for analyzing model operations or updating the model that could then be pointed to as being "significantly more" than the abstract ideas themselves.
Moreover, Examiner was not able to identify any "unconventional" steps, which, when considered in the ordered combination with the other steps, could have transformed the nature of the abstract idea previously identified. The instant application, therefore, still appears to only implement the abstract ideas to the particular technological environments using what is well-understood, routine, and conventional (WURC) in the related arts.
Further, note that the limitations, in the instant claims, are done by the generically
recited computing devices. The limitations are merely instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computing device that is recited in an abstract level and require no more than a generic computing devices to perform generic functions.
Independent claims 15 and 16 are the same analogy and rejected using similar analysis as claim 1.
Additionally, claim 15 recite a system comprising “one or more processors” to execute code stored at a “memory” configured to perform the same method as set forth in claim 1, the added element of “one or more processors” and “memory” do not transform the judicial exception into a practical application because they are tantamount to a mere instruction to apply the judicial exception to a generic computer. The additional elements are also not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the action of implementing the method on a general purpose computer with at least one processor and at least one memory is tantamount to a mere instruction to apply the judicial exception to a computer.
CONCLUSION
It is therefore determined that the instant application not only represents an abstract idea identified as such based on criteria defined by the Courts and on USPTO examination guidelines, but also lacks the capability to bring about "Improvements to another technology or technical field" (Alice), bring about "Improvements to the functioning of the computer itself" (Alice), "Apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine" (Bilski), "Effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing" (Diehr), "Add a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field" (Mayo), "Add unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application" (Mayo), or contain "Other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment" (Alice), transformed a traditionally subjective process performed by humans into a mathematically automated process executed on computers (McRO), or limitations directed to improvements in computer related technology, including claims directed to software (Enfish).
The dependent claims, when considered individually and as a whole, likewise do not provide "significantly more" than the abstract idea for similar reasons as the independent claim.
claims 3 disclose wherein the predetermined threshold is based on a location of the electronic device (Mental process, observation and judgment), It does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and did not add significantly more to the abstract idea; claim 4, “wherein the predetermined threshold is based on a time of day” (Mental process, observation and judgment), It does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and did not add significantly more to the abstract idea; claim 5, “the predetermined threshold is based on a calendar item associated with a current time” (Mental process, observation and judgment), It does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and did not add significantly more to the abstract idea; claim 6, “wherein the predetermined threshold is based on a user setting of the device” (Mental process, observation and judgment), It does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and did not add significantly more to the abstract idea; claim 7, “wherein the predetermined threshold is based on a context of the electronic device” (Mental process, observation and judgment), It does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and did not add significantly more to the abstract idea; claim 8, “wherein the predetermined threshold comprises an urgency level that warrants interrupting a user of the electronic device” (Mental process, observation and judgment), It does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and did not add significantly more to the abstract idea; claim 9, “wherein the information item comprises an email, a voicemail, and/or a text message.” (“Using a computer as a tool to perform a mental process”, MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)), It does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and did not add significantly more to the abstract idea; claim 10, “wherein the information item comprises a change in context of the electronic device” (Mental process, observation and judgment) and (“Using a computer as a tool to perform a mental process”, MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)), It does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and did not add significantly more to the abstract idea; claim 11, “determining whether an acknowledgement of the first notification item has been received; and in accordance with a determination that the acknowledgement of the first notification has not been received,” (Mental process, observation and judgment), providing an audio prompt (Insignificant Extra-Solution, post solution) and it well-understood, routine, conventional activity See at least Case et al. [US 2002/0048361 A1] ¶5, “It is well known to use concatenated voice prompts as the audio output in automated telephone information and/or IVR systems”, It does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and did not add significantly more to the abstract idea; claim 12, “wherein the electronic device is a first electronic device, wherein the information item 1s separate from the first notification item, and wherein the information item 1s received from a second electronic device different from the first electronic device” (“Using a computer as a tool to perform a mental process”, MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)), It does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and did not add significantly more to the abstract idea; claim 13, “wherein the second electronic device different from the first electronic device is associated with a second user different from a first user.” (“Using a computer as a tool to perform a mental process”, MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)), It does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and did not add significantly more to the abstract idea; claim 14, “wherein determining whether the information item is relevant to the urgency value of the first notification item comprises determining whether information in the information item affects a task to be performed in association with the first notification item” (Mental process, observation and judgment), It does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and did not add significantly more to the abstract idea.
The dependent claims which impose additional limitations also fail to claim patent eligible subject matter because the limitations cannot be considered statutory. The dependent claim(s) have been examined individually and in combination with the preceding claims, however they do not cure the deficiencies of claim 1 ; where all claims are directed to the same abstract idea, "addressing each claim of the asserted patents [is] unnecessary." Content Extraction &. Transmission LLC v, Wells Fargo Bank, Natl Ass'n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2014). If applicant believes the dependent claims are directed towards patent eligible subject matter, they are invited to point out the specific limitations in the claim that are directed towards patent eligible subject matter. Claims for the other statutory classes are similarly analyzed.
For at least these reasons, the claimed inventions of each of dependent claims 2-18,are directed or indirect to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more and are rejected under 35 USC 101.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 2-6, 11, 15 and 16 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-23 of U.S. Patent No. 10078487. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they have similar scope.
Current application
U.S. Patent No. 10078487
Claim 2
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing one or more programs configured to be executed by one or more processors of an electronic device, the one or more programs including instructions for:
detecting an information item received from an external device;
determining whether the information item is relevant to an urgency value of
upon determining that the information item is relevant to the urgency value of the first notification item, adjusting the urgency value of the application alert and incorporating content from the information item into the application alert;
in accordance with a determination that a context of the electronic device has changed, adjusting a predetermined threshold of electronic device;
determining whether the adjusted urgency value of the first notification item satisfies the predetermined threshold; and
upon determining that the adjusted urgency value satisfies the predetermined threshold, providing an output including the application alert, the first notification item including the incorporated content from the information item.
Claim 18
A non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing one or more programs, the one or more programs comprising instructions, which when executed by an electronic device with a display, a touch-sensitive surface cause the device to:
detect an information item received from an external device;
determine whether the information item is relevant to an urgency value of the first notification item of the plurality of notification items; and
upon determining that the information item is relevant to the urgency value of the first notification item, adjusting the urgency value of the first notification item and incorporating content from the information item into the first notification item;
upon determining that the information item is relevant to the urgency value of the first notification item, adjusting the urgency value of the first notification item and incorporating content from the information item into the first notification item;
determine whether the adjusted urgency value of the first notification item satisfies a predetermined threshold; and
upon determining that the adjusted urgency value satisfies the predetermined threshold, providing the first notification item to a user, the first notification item including the incorporated content from the information item.
Claim 3
The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 2, wherein the predetermined threshold is based on a location of the electronic device.
Claim 19
The non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 18, further comprising instructions operable to establish the predetermined threshold in accordance with a location of the device.
Claim 4
The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 2, wherein the predetermined threshold is based on a time of day.
Claim 20
The non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 18, further comprising instructions operable to establish the predetermined threshold in accordance with a time of day.
Claim 5
The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 2, wherein the predetermined threshold is based on a calendar item associated with a current time.
Claim 21
The non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 18, further comprising instructions operable to establish the predetermined threshold in accordance with a calendar item associated with a current time.
Claim 6
The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 2, wherein the predetermined threshold is based on a user setting of the device.
Claim 22
The non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 18, further comprising instructions operable to establish the predetermined threshold in accordance with a user setting of the device.
Claim 11
The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 2, the one or more programs including instructions for: determining whether an acknowledgement of the first notification item has been received; and in accordance with a determination that the acknowledgement of the first notification has not been received, providing an audio prompt.
Claim 23
The non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 18, further comprising instruction operable to:
determine whether the user has acknowledged the first notification item; and
upon determining that the user has not acknowledged the first notification item, provide an audio prompt to the user.
Claim 15 and 16 are similar in scope to claim 2; therefore, they are rejected under similar rationale.
Claim7-10, 12-14 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-23 of U.S. Patent No. 10078487 in view of “Autonomic Detection and Processing of Changes to Calendar Events, with Special Handling for Urgent Changes” hereinafter D1.
Current application
U.S. Patent No. 10078487
D1
Claim 7
The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 2, wherein the predetermined threshold is based on a context of the electronic device.
Claim 18
A non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing one or more programs, the one or more programs comprising instructions, which when executed by an electronic device with a display, a touch-sensitive surface cause the device to:
P.1, “various types of meeting changes can be processed in automatic and user configurable ways. In each case, a received calendar change is also processed to check whether the meeting is within the configured time window and if so, correlates the calendar change with the possible reminder, and takes a configurable action as a result”, “A change is urgent when received within a configurable time window (n minutes/hours/days) of the meeting time, or if the new meeting time is within the time window”, P.2, “Any of the above settings can also be modified on a per-meeting basis, allowing the user to override the normal defaults for particular events”, user setting is context of the electronic device. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have combined U.S. Patent No. 10078487 and D1 to intelligently processing changes taking into account their urgency we avoid unnecessary notification to the user until the point where he/she really needs to know about the change (D1, P.1, ¶¶3-4)
Claim 8
The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 2, wherein the predetermined threshold comprises an urgency level that warrants interrupting a user of the electronic device.
Claim 18
A non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing one or more programs, the one or more programs comprising instructions, which when executed by an electronic device with a display, a touch-sensitive surface cause the device to:
P.1, “By intelligently processing changes taking into account their urgency we avoid unnecessary notification to the user until the point where he/she really needs to know about the change. The advantages of the invention are that the user does not receive reminders for meetings that may have been changed, and he/she is not overwhelmed by change notifications (e.g., paging, popups) for changes that could be handled at a later time, while allowing the user to prepare properly and efficiently for the change(s). For example, if the meeting is going to be earlier and in another building, I need to rearrange my schedule and allow more travel time”, P.1, ¶1, “autonomic detection and processing of changes to calendar events, with special handling of urgent changes. By urgent changes we mean changes that happen within a given time window (e.g., 10 min) of the actual calendar event”, ¶2, “received calendar change is also processed to check whether the meeting is within the configured time window and if so, correlates the calendar change with the possible reminder, and takes a configurable action as a result”, P.1, “various types of meeting changes can be processed in automatic and user configurable ways. In each case, a received calendar change is also processed to check whether the meeting is within the configured time window”, “A change is urgent when received within a configurable time window (n minutes/hours/days) of the meeting time, or if the new meeting time is within the time window”, P.2, “Any of the above settings can also be modified on a per-meeting basis, allowing the user to override the normal defaults for particular events”
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have combined U.S. Patent No. 10078487 and D1 to intelligently processing changes taking into account their urgency we avoid unnecessary notification to the user until the point where he/she really needs to know about the change (D1, P.1, ¶¶3-4)
Claim 9
The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 2, wherein the information item comprises an email, a voicemail, and/or a text message.
Claim 18
A non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing one or more programs, the one or more programs comprising instructions, which when executed by an electronic device with a display, a touch-sensitive surface cause the device to:
P.2, “processing of the changes can be done such that it is applied to the calendar, but still is available in the user inbox (marked as processed) in case he/she wants to recheck the change or keep an email record of the change”
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have combined U.S. Patent No. 10078487 and D1 to intelligently processing changes taking into account their urgency we avoid unnecessary notification to the user until the point where he/she really needs to know about the change (D1, P.1, ¶¶3-4)
Claim 10
The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 2, wherein the information item comprises a change in context of the electronic device.
Claim 18
A non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing one or more programs, the one or more programs comprising instructions, which when executed by an electronic device with a display, a touch-sensitive surface cause the device to:
P.1, “By intelligently processing changes taking into account their urgency we avoid unnecessary notification to the user until the point where he/she really needs to know about the change. The advantages of the invention are that the user does not receive reminders for meetings that may have been changed, and he/she is not overwhelmed by change notifications (e.g., paging, popups) for changes that could be handled at a later time, while allowing the user to prepare properly and efficiently for the change(s). For example, if the meeting is going to be earlier and in another building, I need to rearrange my schedule and allow more travel time”, P.1, ¶1, “autonomic detection and processing of changes to calendar events, with special handling of urgent changes”, calendar changes alter the internal behavior and state of the electronic device to provide, cancel or delay notifications in addition to the device calendar state.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have combined U.S. Patent No. 10078487 and D1 to intelligently processing changes taking into account their urgency we avoid unnecessary notification to the user until the point where he/she really needs to know about the change (D1, P.1, ¶¶3-4)
Claim 12
The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 2, wherein the electronic device is a first electronic device, wherein the information item 1s separate from the first notification item, and wherein the information item 1s received from a second electronic device different from the first electronic device.
Claim 18
A non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing one or more programs, the one or more programs comprising instructions, which when executed by an electronic device with a display, a touch-sensitive surface cause the device to:
¶P1, ¶2, “received calendar change is also processed to check whether the meeting is within the configured time window and if so, correlates the calendar change with the possible reminder, and takes a configurable action as a result”, P.2, “processing of the changes can be done such that it is applied to the calendar, but still is available in the user inbox (marked as processed) in case he/she wants to recheck the change or keep an email record of the change”, this show that the changes have been received over an email in the user inbox (external device, scheduling system or calendar server)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have combined U.S. Patent No. 10078487 and D1 to intelligently processing changes taking into account their urgency we avoid unnecessary notification to the user until the point where he/she really needs to know about the change (D1, P.1, ¶¶3-4)
Claim 13
The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 12, wherein the second electronic device different from the first electronic device is associated with a second user different from a first user
Claim 18
A non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing one or more programs, the one or more programs comprising instructions, which when executed by an electronic device with a display, a touch-sensitive surface cause the device to:
P.2, “processing of the changes can be done such that it is applied to the calendar, but still is available in the user inbox (marked as processed) in case he/she wants to recheck the change or keep an email record of the change”, this show that the changes have been received over an email associated with a second user. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have combined U.S. Patent No. 10078487 and D1 to intelligently processing changes taking into account their urgency we avoid unnecessary notification to the user until the point where he/she really needs to know about the change (D1, P.1, ¶¶3-4)
Claim 14
The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 2, wherein determining whether the information item is relevant to the urgency value of the first notification item comprises determining whether information in the information item affects a task to be performed in association with the first notification item
Claim 18
A non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing one or more programs, the one or more programs comprising instructions, which when executed by an electronic device with a display, a touch-sensitive surface cause the device to:
P.1, “By intelligently processing changes taking into account their urgency we avoid unnecessary notification to the user until the point where he/she really needs to know about the change … For example, if the meeting is going to be earlier and in another building, I need to rearrange my schedule and allow more travel time”, P.1, ¶1, “autonomic detection and processing of changes to calendar events, with special handling of urgent changes. By urgent changes we mean changes that happen within a given time window (e.g., 10 min) of the actual calendar event”, ¶2, “received calendar change is also processed to check whether the meeting is within the configured time window and if so, correlates the calendar change with the possible reminder, and takes a configurable action as a result”, P.1, “received calendar change is also processed to check whether the meeting is within the configured time window”, “A change is urgent when received within a configurable time window (n minutes/hours/days) of the meeting time, or if the new meeting time is within the time window”
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have combined U.S. Patent No. 10078487 and D1 to intelligently processing changes taking into account their urgency we avoid unnecessary notification to the user until the point where he/she really needs to know about the change (D1, P.1, ¶¶3-4)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a) the invention was known or used by others in this country, or patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for a patent.
(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of application for patent in the United States.
Claims 2, 4-10, 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) and 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by “Autonomic Detection and Processing of Changes to Calendar Events, with Special Handling for Urgent Changes” hereinafter D1.
With regard to Claim 2,
D1 teach a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing one or more programs configured to be executed by one or more processors of an electronic device, the one or more programs including instructions for (P.1, ¶2, “In this method, various types of meeting changes can be processed in automatic and user configurable Ways”, “In each case, a received calendar change is also processed to check whether the meeting is within the configured time window and if so, correlates the calendar change with the possible reminder, and takes a configurable action as a result”, P.1, ¶3, “calendar program”, “If a change notification is received, the system will autoprocess a particular action(s) as configured … If a change notification is urgent, the system will perform an additional action(s) as configured”, P.2, “different time windows can be set for each change type”):
detecting an information item received from an external device (P.1, “received calendar change is also processed to check whether the meeting is within the configured time window”);
determining whether the information item is relevant to an urgency value of an application alert included in a plurality of notification items (P.1, ¶1, “autonomic detection and processing of changes to calendar events, with special handling of urgent changes. By urgent changes we mean changes that happen within a given time window (e.g., 10 min) of the actual calendar event”,, “By intelligently processing changes taking into account their urgency we avoid unnecessary notification to the user until the point where he/she really needs to know about the change”, ¶2, “received calendar change is also processed to check whether the meeting is within the configured time window and if so, correlates the calendar change with the possible reminder, and takes a configurable action as a result”, system check urgency to determine the urgency value of a meeting notification of different scheduled meetings); and
wherein the application alert includes a notification of an action to be taken by an application (P.1, “various types of meeting changes can be processed in automatic and user configurable ways. In each case, a received calendar change is also processed to check whether the meeting is within the configured time window and if so, correlates the calendar change with the possible reminder, and takes a configurable action as a result”, “In one embodiment, If a change notification is received, the system will autoprocess a particular action(s) as configured. In another embodiment, If a change notification is urgent, the system will perform an additional action(s) as configured”);
upon determining that the information item is relevant to the urgency value of the first notification item, adjusting the urgency value of the application alert (P.1, “If a change notification is urgent, the system will perform an additional action(s) as configured”, P.2, “monitoring capability keeps checking for urgency as time passes and allow automatic processing when they become urgent”), and incorporating content from the information item into the application alert (P.1, location change -> Process location change -> notify user, agenda change -> process change ->notify user, reschedule to earlier time -> notify user, “various types of meeting changes can be processed in automatic and user configurable ways. In each case, a received calendar change is also processed to check whether the meeting is within the configured time window and if so, correlates the calendar change with the possible reminder, and takes a configurable action as a result”, “By intelligently processing changes taking into account their urgency …”, alert triggered in response to event change);
in accordance with a determination that a context of the electronic device has changed (user configure urgency time window), adjusting a predetermined threshold of the electronic device (urgency threshold for delivering alerts) (P.1, “meeting changes can be processed in automatic and user configurable ways. In each case, a received calendar change is also processed to check whether the meeting is within the configured time window and if so, correlates the calendar change with the possible reminder, and takes a configurable action as a result”, P.2, “monitoring capability keeps checking for urgency as time passes …”, “different time windows can be set for each change”);
determining whether the adjusted urgency value of the first notification item satisfies the predetermined threshold (P.1, ¶1, “autonomic detection and processing of changes to calendar events, with special handling of urgent changes. By urgent changes we mean changes that happen within a given time window (e.g., 10 min) of the actual calendar event”, ¶2, “received calendar change is also processed to check whether the meeting is within the configured time window and if so, correlates the calendar change with the possible reminder, and takes a configurable action as a result”, system determine the urgency value of a meeting notification of different scheduled meetings based on threshold (time window)); and
upon determining that the adjusted urgency value satisfies the predetermined threshold, providing an output including the application alert, the application alert including the incorporated content from the information item (P.1, ¶1, “autonomic detection and processing of changes to calendar events, with special handling of urgent changes. By urgent changes we mean changes that happen within a given time window (e.g., 10 min) of the actual calendar event”, ¶2, “received calendar change is also processed to check whether the meeting is within the configured time window and if so, correlates the calendar change with the possible reminder, and takes a configurable action as a result”, system determine the urgency value of a meeting notification of different scheduled meetings based on threshold (time window), P.1, Table, “reschedule to earlier time”, “If time is free, process reschedule. Notify user”).
With regard to Claim 4,
D1 teach the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 2, wherein the predetermined threshold is based on a time of day (P.1, ¶1, “autonomic detection and processing of changes to calendar events, with special handling of urgent changes. By urgent changes we mean changes that happen within a given time window (e.g., 10 min) of the actual calendar event”, ¶2, “received calendar change is also processed to check whether the meeting is within the configured time window and if so, correlates the calendar change with the possible reminder, and takes a configurable action as a result”, system determine the urgency value of a meeting notification of different scheduled meetings based on threshold (time window)).
With regard to Claim 5,
D1 teach the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 2, wherein the predetermined threshold is based on a calendar item associated with a current time (P.1, ¶1, “autonomic detection and processing of changes to calendar events, with special handling of urgent changes. By urgent changes we mean changes that happen within a given time window (e.g., 10 min) of the actual calendar event”, ¶2, “received calendar change is also processed to check whether the meeting is within the configured time window and if so, correlates the calendar change with the possible reminder, and takes a configurable action as a result”, system determine the urgency value of a meeting notification of different scheduled meetings based on threshold (time window)).
With regard to Claim 6,
D1 teach the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 2, wherein the predetermined threshold is based on a user setting of the device (P.1, “various types of meeting changes can be processed in automatic and user configurable ways. In each case, a received calendar change is also processed to check whether the meeting is within the configured time window and if so, correlates the calendar change with the possible reminder, and takes a configurable action as a result”, “A change is urgent when received within a configurable time window (n minutes/hours/days) of the meeting time, or if the new meeting time is within the time window”, P.2, “Any of the above settings can also be modified on a per-meeting basis, allowing the user to override the normal defaults for particular events”).
With regard to Claim 7,
D1 teach the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 2, wherein the predetermined threshold is based on a context of the electronic device (P.1, “various types of meeting changes can be processed in automatic and user configurable ways. In each case, a received calendar change is also processed to check whether the meeting is within the configured time window and if so, correlates the calendar change with the possible reminder, and takes a configurable action as a result”, “A change is urgent when received within a configurable time window (n minutes/hours/days) of the meeting time, or if the new meeting time is within the time window”, P.2, “Any of the above settings can also be modified on a per-meeting basis, allowing the user to override the normal defaults for particular events”, user setting is context of the electronic device).
With regard to Claim 8,
D1 teach the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 2, wherein the predetermined threshold comprises an urgency level that warrants interrupting a user of the electronic device (P.1, “By intelligently processing changes taking into account their urgency we avoid unnecessary notification to the user until the point where he/she really needs to know about the change. The advantages of the invention are that the user does not receive reminders for meetings that may have been changed, and he/she is not overwhelmed by change notifications (e.g., paging, popups) for changes that could be handled at a later time, while allowing the user to prepare properly and efficiently for the change(s). For example, if the meeting is going to be earlier and in another building, I need to rearrange my schedule and allow more travel time”, P.1, ¶1, “autonomic detection and processing of changes to calendar events, with special handling of urgent changes. By urgent changes we mean changes that happen within a given time window (e.g., 10 min) of the actual calendar event”, ¶2, “received calendar change is also processed to check whether the meeting is within the configured time window and if so, correlates the calendar change with the possible reminder, and takes a configurable action as a result”, P.1, “various types of meeting changes can be processed in automatic and user configurable ways. In each case, a received calendar change is also processed to check whether the meeting is within the configured time window”, “A change is urgent when received within a configurable time window (n minutes/hours/days) of the meeting time, or if the new meeting time is within the time window”, P.2, “Any of the above settings can also be modified on a per-meeting basis, allowing the user to override the normal defaults for particular events”).
With regard to Claim 9,
D1 teach the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 2, wherein the information item comprises an email (P.2, “processing of the changes can be done such that it is applied to the calendar, but still is available in the user inbox (marked as processed) in case he/she wants to recheck the change or keep an email record of the change”), a voicemail, and/or a text message.
With regard to Claim 10,
D1 teach the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 2, wherein the information item comprises a change in context of the electronic device (P.1, “By intelligently processing changes taking into account their urgency we avoid unnecessary notification to the user until the point where he/she really needs to know about the change. The advantages of the invention are that the user does not receive reminders for meetings that may have been changed, and he/she is not overwhelmed by change notifications (e.g., paging, popups) for changes that could be handled at a later time, while all