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 Amendment
This office action is responsive to amendment filed on 9/1/2026. Claims 1 and 19 are amended. Claims 1-20 are pending examination.
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 a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 1 is drawn to method (i.e., a process), claim 19 is drawn to a system (i.e., a machine/manufacture). As such, claims 1, and 19 are drawn to one of the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong One. The claims are directed to a method and system for selectively generating message notification based on user defined search targets (keywords, topics, sentiment) while a chat channel is muted. The claimed operations include: activating mute and auto-unmute features; receiving user inputs; receiving messages; analyzing messages for characteristics; determining whether to generate a notification. These steps constitute organizing human activity, mental processes, and data analysis, which fall within recognized abstract idea groupings under the 2019 PEG. Specifically, collecting information (receiving messages, receiving search targets); displaying information (determining whether message characteristics match search targets); and displaying or withholding notification (a form of information presentation). These are abstract mental processes and methods of organizing human activity. There is no apparent technological improvement. The claims only automate what a human could do: mute a conversation, monitor messages, look for keywords, and decide whether to notify.
Step 2A Prong Two. The claims recite: a processor, a memory a user device (smartphone, desktop, laptop), and a user interface. These are generic computing components performing their ordinary functions (receiving input, processing data, displaying notification). They do not provide an improvement to computer functionality. The claims do not improve: message delivery technology; notification systems; computer processing nor network communications. Automating a human decision process (monitoring messages for keywords and deciding whether to notify) does not constitute a practical application.
Step 2B. the additional elements such as processor, memory, user interface, smartphone, desktop are well understood, routine and conventional. There is no unconventional arrangement of components, no specialized hardware, and no technical improvement. The “auto-unmute” feature is a business rule, not a technological innovation. The combination of elements performs routine computer functions of: receiving data; analyzing data; generating notifications. Nothing in the claims amounts to inventive concept. In conclusion, because the claims recite an abstract idea; do not integrate the idea into a practical application, and lack an inventive concept, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 USC § 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 1-5, 8, 11-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bastide et al. U.S Patent No. 9,935,906 (referred to herein after as Bastide), and further in view of Park et al. U.S. Patent No. 10,243,906 (referred to hereinafter as Park).
As to claim1, Bastide teaches a computer-implemented method of selectively generating message notifications in relation to respective messages to a user via a user device, wherein the messages each comprises a text-based chat message posted on a chat channel to which the user is subscribed, the method comprising:
activating a mute feature in relation to the chat channel, wherein the mute feature, once activated, is configured to suppress a generation of message notifications associated with respective new messages posted to the chat channel, (see Bastide at least col. 1 lines 20-27, teaches detecting that at least a first user has muted the conversation. The method also includes, responsive to the first user muting the conversation, configuring an electronic message inbox of the first user to prevent further electronic messages pertaining to the conversation from being visible in the electronic message inbox), wherein the new messages comprise ones of the messages posted to the chat channel subsequent to the activation of the mute feature (receiving at least one additional electronic message (received after muting), while the conversation is muted)
activating an auto-unmute feature in relation to the chat channel (see Bastide col. 1 lines 33-41, automatically determining, using a processor, whether the conversation should be unmuted for the first user);
receiving one or more search targets, the one or more search targets each comprising message characteristics (see Bastide col. 2 line 55-col.3 line 5, analyzing the at least one additional electronic message comprises identifying terms contained in the at least one additional electronic message and determining whether the messages in the conversation contains at least one term that is of particular interest to the user); and performing, when the auto-unmute feature is activated, a first process for selectively overriding the mute feature in relation to the new messages, wherein, when described in relation to an exemplary first new message of the new messages that is representative as to how the first process operates in relation to each of the new messages, the first process comprises:
receiving the first new message (see Bastide col. 2 line 55-col.3 line 5, analyzing the at least one additional electronic message);
analyzing the first new message to determine if the message characteristics of the one or more search targets are present in the first new message (see Bastide col. 2 line 55-col.3 line 5, analyzing the at least one additional electronic message and determining whether it contains one term of particular interest);
Bastide does not but Park teaches
if the one or more search targets are determined to not be present in the first new message, maintaining the mute feature so that, in relation to the first new message, no message notification is generated (see Park claims 3 and 4, discloses a notification is absent when condition is not met i.e. maintaining mute and suppress notification) ; and
are determined to be present in the first new message, overriding the mute feature so that, in relation to the first new message, a first message notification is generated (see claim 1 of Park, providing a message reception notification.. if message includes certain phrase).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art, at the time of the invention to combine Park’s keyword triggered notification mechanism into Bastide’s automatic unmute system to ensure that important messages are surfaced when a conversation is muted. Thereby improving the precision of notification delivery while maintaining suppression on non-relevant messages.
As to claim 2, Bastide-Park teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the activating the mute feature in relation to the chat channel further comprises: generating a first user interface that includes a mute activation input in relation to the chat channel; and receiving a first input from the user in relation to the mute activation input; wherein the mute feature is activated in response to receiving the first input (see Bastide claim 1, detecting that ,.. user has muted the conversation; and Park claim 1 UI steps, displaying.. window.. menus.. touch input.. adding phrase, it is obvious that muting is performed through UI input).
As to claim 3, Bastide-Park teaches the method of claim 2, wherein the activating the auto-unmute feature in relation to the chat channel comprises:
generating the first user interface to further include an auto-unmute activation input in relation to the chat channel; and receiving a second input from the user in relation to the auto-unmute activation input (see Claim 1 of Bastide, automatic unmute feature, and Park UI configuration for notification behavior, the combined references allow enabling /disabling auto unmute through UI).
As to claim 4, Bastide-Park teaches the method of claim 3, wherein the activating the auto-unmute feature in relation to the chat channel comprises:
generating the first user interface to further include one or more search targets inputs corresponding to respective ones of the one or more search targets; and receiving a third input from the user in relation to the one or more search target inputs, the third input comprising information provided by the user specifying at least one of the one or more search targets; wherein the auto-unmute feature is activated in response to receiving the second and third inputs (see Park col. 6 lines 26-55 discloses user defined keywords).
As to claim 5, Bastide-Park teaches the method of claim 4, wherein the one or more search target inputs comprise at least two search target inputs corresponding to at least two respective ones of the one or more search targets; wherein the at least two search target inputs are configured in the first user interface to allow the user to select therebetween so that the auto-unmute feature can be activated in relation to one or more of the at least two search targets in accordance with a preference of the user (see Park at least claim 1 and col.6 lines 26-44, editing and adding multiple phrases and selecting among them)
As to claim 8, Bastide-Park teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the one or more search targets comprise a keyword search target (see Bastide at least col.2 line 55- col.3 line 3, term of interest).
As to claim 11, Bastide-Park teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the one or more search targets includes: a first search target that comprises either a keyword search target or a topic search target; and a sentiment search target that can be used in conjunction with the first search target (see Bastide col. 7 line 36-col. 8-line 25 keyword/topic).
As to claim 12, Bastide-Park teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the one or more search targets comprises two search targets; and wherein both of the two search targets must be determined as present in the first new message to override the mute feature (see Park col. 6 line 56-col. 7 line 56, conditional logic based on message content).
As to claim13, Bastide-Park teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the one or more search targets comprises two search targets; and wherein at least one of the two search targets must be determined to be present in the first new message to override the mute feature (see Park col. 9, line 53- col.10 line 26, notification triggered if condition is satisfied).
As to claim14, Bastide-Park teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the user device comprises a smart phone (see Park col. 5 lines 1-13, smartphone).
As to claim15, Bastide-Park teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the user device comprises a desktop or laptop computer and the user comprises an agent of a contact center; and wherein the one or more search targets includes: a first search target that comprises either a keyword search target or a topic search target; and a sentiment search target that can be used in conjunction with the first search target (see Park col. 5 lines 1-13, device type).
As to claim16, Bastide-Park teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the message notifications comprises both a visual indicator and a sound indicator that are generated in real time for alerting user of a message being posted to the chat channel; wherein: the visual indicator comprises a pop-up notification generated in a user interface; and the sound indicator comprises a notification noise generated by the user device (see Park col. 11, line 51-col. 12 line 6, output message .. reception information.. sound .. vibration sound and display messages ).
As to claim17, Bastide-Park teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the first message notification includes a communication notifying the user that the first message notification relates to a message posted to a chat channel that had been muted by the user via activating the mute feature (see Bastide notification comes from previously muted conversation see col. 1 line 20 and col.2 line 25).
As to claim18, Bastide-Park teaches the method of claim 17, wherein the first message notification includes a query in which the user is asked whether the chat channel should remain muted (see Bastide col. 8 line 49- col.9 line5, notification includes communication which relates to a muted channel).
Claims 6-7,9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bastide-Park, and further in view of Parikh et al U.S. Patent No. 9,208,502 *referred to herein after as Parikh).
As to claim 6, Bastide-Park does not but Parikh teaches the method of analyzing the first new message to determine if the one or more search targets are present comprises analyzing the first new message in context with a predetermined number of other new messages that were posted to the chat channel just prior to the first new message (see at least abstract and col.3 line 35-60, analyzing contextual data near the keyword).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art to, at the time of the invention, to incorporate Parikh’s contextual analysis into the systems of Bastide and Park in order to improve accuracy of determining whether a message is important enough to override a mute condition and improve detection of meaningful messages.
As to claim 7, Bastide-Park does not but Parikh teaches wherein the one or more search targets comprise a topic search target (see Parikh at least col. 3 lines 34-59, keyword and contextual data and topic reference.
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art to, at the time of the invention, to extend keyword-based detection in Bastide and Park to include topic level analysis to improve robustness of message filtering by accounting for semantic relationships among keywords.
As to claim 9, Bastide-Park does not but Parikh teaches one or more search targets includes a topic search target that can be used in conjunction with a sentiment search target (see col. 8 line 62- line 9 line 3, and col. 10 lines 42-47, deriving sentiment data based on contextual data and alerts triggered based on sentiment thresholds).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art to, at the time of the invention, to Incorporate Parikh’s sentiment analysis into the message filtering systems of Bastide and Park to further refine which messages should trigger notification and enable prioritization of messages not only by content but also by emotional or contextual importance, consequently improving the overall effectiveness of notification filtering.
As to claim10 Bastide-Park does not but Parikh teaches the one or more search targets includes a keyword search target that can be used in conjunction with a sentiment search target (see col. 8 line 62- line 9 line 3, and col. 10 lines4 2-47).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art to, at the time of the invention, to Incorporate Parikh’s sentiment analysis into the message filtering systems of Bastide and Park to further refine which messages should trigger notification and enable prioritization of messages not only by content but also by emotional or contextual importance, consequently improving the overall effectiveness of notification filtering.
Claims 19 and 20 d not teach anything above and beyond the limitations of claims 1-8 and are rejected for similar reasons.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Arguments regarding 35 U.S.C. 101.
The applicant argues that claim 1 does not recite a mental process because a person cannot mentally activate a software mute feature, suppresses electronic notifications, monitor messages posted to an electronic chat channel, or cause a user device to generate a notification.
The examiner acknowledges that certain recited computer operations, such as electronically activating a mute feature and electronically generating or suppressing a notification, cannot themselves be performed entirely in the human mind. However, claim 1 also recites receiving user defined message characteristics, analyzing the content of a message to determine whether the specified characteristics are present, and deciding based on the result of that analysis. Such limitations involve evaluating information according to specified criteria and making determination based on that evaluation. The computer provides the environment in which this analysis is performed and apply the result of the analysis. Specifically, when the specified message characteristics are not found, the notification remains suppressed, and when the specified characteristics are found, a notification is generated. This, the claimed computer functionality implements the result of the message content analysis.
The applicant argues that claim 1 can not practically performed in the human mind because the claim requires operation of an electronic chat channel and control of electronic notifications. The Examiner agrees that the claim as a whole requires computer implementation. However, simply running a computer to perform or apply an abstract idea does not by itself establish patent eligibility. The analysis also considers whether the additional computer elements integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application.
The applicant argues that the claims do not recite “ a method of organizing human activity”. The Examiner has considered this argument. Even assuming that the claims do not fall within the “certain methods or organizing human activity” grouping, this does not overcome the rejection because the claimed message content analysis includes evaluating information according to specified criteria and making a decision based on that evaluation. Accordingly, the examiner does not rely on the “certain methods or organizing human activity” characterization as necessary to maintain the rejection.
The applicant argues that even if the message analysis considered an abstract idea claim 1 integrates the abstract idea into a practical application because the result of the analysis directly controls whether an electronic notification is generated.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. The specification explains that a user may participate in multiple chat channels and may become visually or audibly inundated by notifications. The specification also explains that conventional mute functionality suppresses notifications but may result in the user missing messages containing important or useful information. The disclosed auto-unmute feature addresses this problem by analyzing new messages in a muted chat channel for user specified keywords, topics, sentiment, or other message characteristics. When a specified characteristic is detected, a notification is generated to inform the user that a potentially relevant message has been posted. Therefore, the claimed improvement concerns determining which messages are sufficiently relevant to cause a notification to be presented tot eh user. The claim does not recite improvement to how electronic messages are transmitted, how the chat server operates, how notification signals are technically generated, how computer memory or processing is performed, or how network is used to implement the result of the message content analysis.
The applicant argues that the claimed auto-unmute feature provides a specific technological solution to a problem arising in electronic chat systems.
The specification describes the identified problem mainly as a one involving excessive notifications and the possibility that the user may miss information while still receiving a notification when selected message characteristics indicate that a message is likely important. This proves the selection of information presented to the user but does not establish an improvement to the operation of the computer or messaging technology.
The specification does not identify a particular improved algorithm or technological mechanism for performing these computer operations. Rather, the computer components are used to carry out the claimed message analysis and notification decision.
Applicant’s arguments regarding 35 U.S.C. § 103 REJECTION have been considered but are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that Bastide does not teach the amended limitation requiring the mute feature to suppress notifications while still allowing the new messages to remain accessible int eh chat channel.
The examiner agrees that Bastide describes hiding messages while the conversation is muted. However, the rejection is based on Bastide in view of Park, not Bastide alone. Park teaches a group that where message notifications are restricted while messages are still received in the group chat. Park further teaches providing a notification only when the received message contains a selected notification phrase or other notification information. Park also describes the user interacting with words or phrases in the group chat window, which shows that the chat messages remain available to the user even when notifications are restricted. Bastide teaches receiving messages while a conversation is muted, analyzing the messages for user selected terms or other criteria, and determining whether the conversation should be unmuted based on that analysis. Therefore, the combination of Bastide and Park teaches or suggests suppressing notifications while messages remain accessible analyzing new messages for selected characteristics and generating a notification when the selected characteristic is found. Accordingly, applicant’s argument are not persuasive and the rejection under 35 U.S.C 103 is maintained.
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 SARGON N NANO whose telephone number is (571)272-4007. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 AM-3:30 PM. M.S.T..
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, Nicholas Taylor can be reached at 571 272 3889. 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.
/SARGON N NANO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2443
Prosecution Insights