DETAILED ACTION
This office action is responsive to communication(s) filed on 2/4/2026.
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 .
Specification
The new title of the invention filed on 2/4/2026 is acceptable.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group 1 (claims 1-8, 12 and 14, and 17-22) in the reply filed on 2/4/2026 is acknowledged.
As pointed out by the applicant, claim 13 (which is now canceled) was not intended to be part of Group 1.
Claims Status
Claims 1, 3-8, 12, 14 and 18-28 are pending and are currently being examined.
Claims 1, and 14 are independent.
Claims 23-28 are newly added.
Claims 1, 3, 14, and 18 are newly amended.
Claims 2, 9-11, 13 and 15-17 are canceled, of which claims 2, 9-11, 13 and 17 are newly canceled.
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 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 5-8, 12-14, 20-25, 27 and 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lewis (US 20200134679 A1) in view of Choi; Hyun-soo et al. (hereinafter Choi – US 20190066158 A1).
Independent Claim 1:
Lewis teaches:
A computer-implemented method comprising:
determining, by a digital component distribution system (prompt server), to distribute, to a computing device, a digital component (digital prompts) that depicts content related to a particular subject (e.g., related to feedback request for an application the user may have downloaded); (a prompt server distributes prompts to user computing devices, ¶ 127 and figs. 1 and 5)
determining, by the digital component distribution system and using a data processing model (e.g., server determining) and contextual information for the computing device (user’s interest levels, e.g., based users’ previous interactions with application on the users’ devices), to include a remind-me-later user interface control (e.g., prompt input 506b) with the digital component; (¶¶ 127 and 128 and fig. 5)
and in response to determining to include the remind-me-later user interface control (e.g., based specific applications), modifying the digital component to include the remind-me-later user interface control that, when interacted with by a user, causes the computing device to schedule a notification that reminds a user of the computing device of the particular subject of the digital component; (interaction with prompt input 506b will cause the prompt to be displayed “at a later point in time” [schedule a notification], ¶ 129 and fig. 5)
and sending the digital component with the remind-me-later user interface control to the computing device, (at the appropriate timing, ¶ 69, the prompts are provided by the prompt server, ¶ 69)
wherein the contextual information includes a level of user engagement (level of interest) with an application executing on the computing device, (user’s interest levels, e.g., based users’ previous interactions with application on the users’ devices, ¶¶ 127 and 128 and fig. 5)
[…].
Lewis addresses the annoyance of feedback requests—such as rating or sharing an app—by proposing a targeted approach, ¶ 2. Instead of blanket notifications, the system only sends interruptive prompts when a user's negative interactions fall below a certain threshold, ¶ 97. By identifying likely engagers, the system minimizes repetitive, unwanted prompts, reducing user annoyance and increasing positive outcomes, ¶¶ 37 and 38.
Lewis does not appear to expressly teach, but Choi teaches:
and wherein scheduling the notification comprises determining that the level of user engagement has fallen below a threshold value (effectively providing advertisement [well-known intrusive content] without necessarily interfering with immersion of a user with respect to content, ¶ 7, by displaying the ad when the immersion level of the user low, ¶¶ 36 and 62.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the method of Lewis to include and wherein scheduling the notification comprises determining that the level of user engagement has fallen below a threshold value, as taught by Choi.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to improve the effectiveness of the disruptive prompt, by ensuring that it doesn’t interfere with an immersion level of a user, Choi ¶¶ 36 and 62. It was well within the capabilities of a person having ordinary skill in the art to have realized that similar benefit of implementing the concepts of effectively providing advertisement in Choi to the disruptive prompt in Lewis, since both Choi and Lewis are involved with providing disruptive content to the user in a way that would prevent or reduce annoyance and more likely result in a positive/effective provision of the content, Lewis ¶¶ 37-38, Choi ¶¶ 36 and 62.
Claim 5:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Lewis further teaches:
wherein the contextual information includes a type of application with which a user is currently interacting (¶¶ 41, 89 and 129, together inherently imply contextual information that includes a type of application with which a user is currently interacting. This implication arises because the text repeatedly describes specific types of engagement that are tied to specific types of applications and specific kinds of content accessed through those applications. Paragraph 41 provides a list of different types of applications, e.g., social media and application for digital video, digital movies, digital photos, etc. Then Paragraph 89 discusses specific activities that imply certain application types. E.g., The text mentions activities like "level of a game," "pages read," "modules completed," and "purchasing content". These activities are characteristic of gaming applications, e-reader applications, educational applications, and e-commerce applications, respectively. Paragraph 129 mentions application information including process currently being undertaking. So, for example, while the text doesn't explicitly state "the user is currently using a game app," the detailed descriptions of what the user is doing and what kind of content they are engaging with inherently provide the context of the type of application being used).
Claim 6:
The rejection of claim 5 is incorporated. Lewis further teaches:
wherein the type of application is one of a timed game,
an untimed game,
an ebook, (electronic books (eBooks), ¶ 41 and pages read, ¶ 89)
a browser,
or social media. (social media updates, ¶ 41)
Claim 7:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Lewis further teaches:
further comprising: determining, by the digital component distribution system, a schedule; (See ¶ 129. This inherently reflects determining…a schedule, because is reflects a feedback loop where user input on the timing of a prompt causes the underlying system to make a scheduling decision and record that decision as a modification to the data governing the digital component's presentation logic. Namely, the prompt’s schedule is provided “at a later point in time” based on interaction with the “Remind me later” option)
and modifying, by the digital component distribution system, the digital component to include the schedule. (See ¶ 129. The system "modifies the digital component to include the schedule" by altering internal data or settings based on the user's choice)
Claim 8:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Lewis further teaches:
wherein the modifying results in the remind-me-later user interface control obscuring content within the digital component. (The application 112 may be shown behind the prompt 114. The application 112 may be obscured (e.g., shaded), ¶ 129)
Claim 12:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Lewis further teaches:
wherein the contextual information includes signals from the computing device, and wherein the signals include at least one of time, geographic location and language of application. (a user's geographic location may be generalized where location information is obtained, such as to a city, ZIP code, or state level, ¶ 80)
Claim 13:
The rejection of claim 9 is incorporated. Lewis further teaches:
wherein the reminder schedule is based on at least one of time (“a later point in time”), a detected termination of an application, device is idle, level of engagement with an application executing on the device, and application publisher conditions. (¶ 129)
Independent Claims 14 and 25:
Claim(s) 14 and 25 is/are directed to a system and computer-readable medium for accomplishing the steps in claim 1, and is rejected using similar rationale(s).
Claim 20:
The rejection of claim 14 is incorporated. Claim(s) 20 is/are directed to a system for accomplishing the steps in claim 5, and is rejected using similar rationale(s).
Claim 21:
The rejection of claim 20 is incorporated. Claim(s) 21 is/are directed to a system for accomplishing the steps in claim 6, and is rejected using similar rationale(s).
Claims 22 and 27:
The rejection of claims 14 and 25 are incorporated. Claim(s) 22 and 27 is/are directed to a system and medium, respectively, for accomplishing the steps in claim 7, and are rejected using similar rationale(s).
Claim 23:
The rejection of claim 7 is incorporated. Lewis further teaches:
wherein modifying the digital component comprises adding, to the digital component, an executable script that defines the schedule comprising one or more conditions, that, when satisfied, cause the computing device to remind to the user. (As mentioned for claim 7, See ¶ 129. The system "modifies the digital component to include the schedule" by altering internal data or settings based on the user's choice. A PDM component 136 acts as an executable script by analyzing interaction data to dynamically define and update, via a prompt manager 124, specific timing and frequency conditions for prompting a user, thereby scheduling when the computing device presents feedback reminders. At least in that timing/frequency conditions/settings, can be adjusted, this is interpreted as “adding” the executable script, or conditions)
Claims 24 and 28:
The rejection of claims 22 and 27 are incorporated. Claim(s) 24 and 28 is/are directed to a system and medium, respectively, for accomplishing the steps in claim 23, and are rejected using similar rationale(s).
Claim(s) 3, 18 and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lewis (US 20200134679 A1) in view of Choi (US 20190066158 A1), as applied to claims 3, 18 and 25 above, and further in view of Decrop; Clement et al. (hereinafter Decrop – US 11487400 B1).
Claim 3:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Lewis, as mentioned above, teaches the remind-me-later user interface control, and further teaches that interruptive dialogs, such as the prompts from prompt server, are personalized, Abstract.
However, Lewis does not appear to expressly teach, but Decrop teaches:
wherein the data processing model selects the remind-me-later user interface control based on a predicted likelihood that a user will activate the remind-me-later user interface control (a system automatically optimizes the configuration of an aggregated user interface [368] based on a prediction of how an operator [302] is likely to interact with specific content [315] [predicted likelihood that a user will activate the remind-me-later user interface control], col 14:55-67).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Lewis to include wherein the data processing model selects the remind-me-later user interface control based on a predicted likelihood that a user will activate the remind-me-later user interface control, as taught by Decrop.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to improve usability and personalization of the method by displaying only personalized, and appropriate controls to the user, Decrop, cols. 1:9-18 and 14:55-67 and Lewis, Abstract and figs. 1 and 5.
Claims 18 and 26:
The rejection of claims 14 and 25 is incorporated. Claim(s) 18 and 26 is/are directed to a system and medium, respectively, for accomplishing the steps in claims 3 and 26, and are rejected using similar rationale(s).
Claim(s) 4 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lewis (US 20200134679 A1) in view of Choi (US 20190066158 A1) and Decrop (US 11487400 B1), as applied to claims 3 and 18 above, and further in view of Roy; Scott et al. (US 20110202821 A1).
Claim 4:
The rejection of claim 3 is incorporated. Lewis-Decrop does not appear to expressly teach, but Roy teaches:
wherein the predicted likelihood reflects a type of application in which the digital component will be displayed (a type of application is known descriptive information that may utilized by a model for predicting user interactions with the application, ¶ 86. Note that application modules may also be interpreted as applets or applications, which are discreet programs which are a distinguishable part of the graphical display page, ¶ 54).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the method of Lewis to include wherein the predicted likelihood reflects a type of application in which the digital component will be displayed, as taught by Roy.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to further improve the usability and user experience of the method by tailoring features to user’s personal preferences using known descriptive information, Roy ¶¶ 5 and 86.
Claim 19:
The rejection of claim 18 is incorporated. Claim(s) 19 is/are directed to a system for accomplishing the steps in claim 4, and is rejected using similar rationale(s).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 102 rejection(s) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of section 103 and new reference found.
Arguments for the remaining claims are also moot based on the new grounds of rejection above.
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Below is a list of these references, including why they are pertinent:
Touloumtzis; Michael P. US 8823507 B1, is pertinent to claim 1 for disclosing providing users “with less disruptive notifications by being aware of a user’s context, e.g., not providing noise/sound when it would be “too disruptive” based on user’s circumstances, e.g., when user is reading in a quiet room, cols 4:39-5:23.
Soffer; Ronen Aharon et al. US 20170372267 A1, is pertinent to claim 1 for disclosing contextual event rescheduling with an event scheduling service, Abstract with a contextual option for “Remind me later”, ¶ 55.
Dornich; William Mitchell et al. US 20220207565 A1, is pertinent to claim 1 for disclosing a contextual promotion followed by a “remind me later” link, ¶ 76 and fig. 18.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GABRIEL S MERCADO whose telephone number is (408)918-7537. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8am-5pm (Eastern Time).
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, Kieu Vu can be reached at (571) 272-4057. 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.
/Gabriel Mercado/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2171