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 .
Status of Claims
Applicant filed an amendment on June 17, 2026. Claims 1-20 were pending in the Application. Claims 1, 11, 13, 17, and 19-20 are amended. No new claims have been added. No claims have been canceled and/or withdrawn. Claims 1, 13, and 17 are the independent claims, the remaining claims depend on claims 1, 13, and 17. Thus claims 1-20 are currently pending. After careful and full consideration of Applicant arguments and amendments, the Examiner finds them to be moot and/or not persuasive.
Response to Arguments
In the context of 35 U.S.C. §101, Applicant respectfully traverses the rejection. Applicant is of the opinion that the claims are statutory and respectfully asserts that “the characterization that the rejection asserts that the claims are directed to “performing actions using email” and that the additional elements merely use a computer as a tool does not reflect the claim as amended; the limitations integrate any alleged abstract idea into a practical application; the claims do not merely display information or implement a generic workflow on a computer; instead, the claims recite a specific mechanism for controlling the structure and behavior of an email interface based on a distributed server verification process, in which a verification response from an external server governs whether actionable user interface elements are generated and presented; this control of the interface represents a concrete application of the claimed processing; the email interface is not used as a passive display, but is actively modified based on the outcome of a verification exchange with another server; the claims therefore impose a meaningful limit on any alleged abstract idea and integrate it into a practical application; the amended claims include significantly more; the amended claims require that the verification response controls generation of an interactive element within the email interface and transitions the interface between different states depending on authorization; this is not a situation where a computer is simply used to perform a business process; the claims define a specific, non-conventional coordination between distributed servers and a graphical user interface, in which a verification operation is performed across distinct servers, the result of that operation is used to make a control determination, and that determination governs whether an actionable UI element is generated and presented; this arrangement improves the way the interface operates by ensuring that only authorized actions are made available directly within the email interface and by dynamically modifying the interface based on system-level verification results; the interface is therefore transformed from a static presentation of email content into a controlled execution environment that reflects the current authorization state of the user; such a controlled modification of interface state based on distributed verification is not a generic or conventional use of a computer; it goes beyond merely automating a manual process and instead provides a specific technical mechanism that governs how and when interface elements are generated and presented in response to system conditions; the amended claims recite a specific technical arrangement in which a verification response from an external server is used to control generation of interface elements and to modify the email interface between different states; and this constitutes a concrete application of the claimed processing and provides significantly more than any alleged abstract idea”.
Initially, the Examiner would like to point out that the basis of the rejection is Alice, by applying the subject matter eligibility analysis and flowchart according to MPEP § 2106, which applies a two-step framework, earlier set out in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., 566 U.S. 66 (2012), "for distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts." Alice, 573 U.S. at 217.
Under the two-step framework, it must first be determined if "the claims at issue are directed to a patent-ineligible concept." If the claims are determined to be directed to a patent-ineligible concept, e.g., an abstract idea, then the second step of the framework is applied to determine if "the elements of the claim ... contain an "inventive concept" sufficient to 'transform' the claimed abstract idea into a patent-eligible application." (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72-73, 79).
With regard to step one of the Alice framework, we apply a "directed to" two-prong test: 1) evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception, and 2) if the claim recites a judicial exception, evaluate whether the claim "applies, relies on, or uses the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception," i.e., whether the claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application. (MPEP §2106.04 II.A.1. and II.B.2.).
The Specification, (PG Pub US 20240428238 A1, para 3), provides evidence as to what the claimed invention is directed. In this case, the specification, (‘238 A1, para 3), discloses that the invention generally relates to performing actions using email based on selected inputs, and is grouped under “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)”, in prong one of step 2A. (MPEP §2106.04 II.A.1.).
Claim 1 provides additional evidence, and recites the limitations “identifying a first email received by a first email account from a second email account, and performing, by an email system, operations comprising: transmitting, by a first server of the email system, a verification message to a second server associated with a first entity associated with the second email account that transmitted the first email; receiving, by the first server of the email system, a verification response to the verification message from the second server associated with the first entity; and determining, based upon the verification response received from the second server, that a user associated with the first email account is authorized to perform an entity action corresponding to the first entity; responsive to determining, based upon the verification response received from the second server, that the user associated with the first email account that received the first email is authorized to perform the entity action corresponding to the first entity associated with the second email account that transmitted the first email: after the first email is received by the first email account from the second email account, selectively displaying, on a first client device via an email interface associated with the first email account that received the first email, a selectable input corresponding to performing the entity action, corresponding to the first entity associated with the second email account that transmitted the first email, that the user is determined to be authorized to perform based upon the verification response; receiving, by the email system, a request to perform the entity action via a selection of the selectable input within the email interface; and responsive to receiving the request to perform the entity action, displaying an action interface, on the first client device within the email interface, corresponding to performing the entity action”, which represent the abstract idea of “performing actions using email”. The abstract idea is in italics, and the additional elements are in bold. (MPEP §2106.04 II.A.1.).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A (MPEP §2106.04 II.A.2.), the additional elements of the claim, such as “an email system”, “a first server of the email system”, “a second server”, “selectively displaying, on a first client device via an email interface associated with the first email account that received the first email, a selectable input corresponding to performing the entity action”, “a selection of the selectable input within the email interface”, and “displaying an action interface, on the first client device within the email interface”, amount to merely “apply it”, as they represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they do no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to implementing the acts of “performing actions using email”.
Examiner notes the basis of the rejection was, and is not as any mental process covering performance in the mind, but classified as an abstract idea, “performing actions using email”, grouped under “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)”.
With respect to the additional elements operating in a non-conventional and non-generic way and reflecting an improvement to a particular technological environment, the cited additional elements represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they do no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to implementing the acts of “performing actions using email”. The claim is not directed to improving computer functionality nor improving another technology or technical field, but improving the method for “performing actions using email”. For potential improvement in an abstract idea, “performing actions using email”, it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a performing actions using email concept) is not an improvement in technology. (MPEP § 2106.04(d)(1)). Therefore, claim 1 is non-statutory.
Claim 13 also recites the abstract idea of “performing actions using email”, as well as the additional elements of “an email system comprising: a processor; and memory comprising processor-executable instructions that, when executed by the processor, causes the processor to perform operations, the operations comprising: …”, “a second server”, “displaying, on a first client device via an email interface associated with the first email account that received the first email, a selectable input corresponding to performing the entity action”, and “a selection of the selectable input”, which amount to merely “apply it”, as they represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they do no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to implementing the acts of “performing actions using email”.
When analyzed under step 2B (MPEP 2106.05 I.A.), the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claim merely describe the concept of “performing actions using email” using computer technology (e.g., “an email system comprising: a processor; and memory comprising processor-executable instructions that, when executed by the processor, causes the processor to perform operations, the operations comprising: …” and “a second server”). Therefore, these additional elements do no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea. And as the computer does no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea, they do not improve computer functionality nor improve another technology or technical field. Therefore, claim 13 is non-statutory.
Claim 17 also recites the abstract idea of “performing actions using email”, as well as the additional elements of “a non-transitory machine readable medium having stored thereon processor-executable instructions that, when executed by a processor of a communication system, cause the processor of the communication system to perform operations, the operations comprising: …”, “a second client device”, “a second server”, “a first client device”, “displaying, on the first client device via a communication interface associated with the first user account associated with the first client device that received the first message, a selectable input corresponding to performing the entity action”, “a selection of the selectable input” and “displaying an action interface, on the first client device within the communication interface”, which amount to merely “apply it”, as they represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they do no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to implementing the acts of “performing actions using email”.
When analyzed under step 2B (MPEP 2106.05 I.A.), the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claim merely describe the concept of “performing actions using email” using computer technology (e.g., “a non-transitory machine readable medium having stored thereon processor-executable instructions that, when executed by a processor of a communication system, cause the processor of the communication system to perform operations, the operations comprising: …” and “a first client device”). Therefore, these additional elements do no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea. And as the computer does no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea, they do not improve computer functionality nor improve another technology or technical field. Therefore, claim 17 is non-statutory.
Finally, Examiner notes the basis of the rejection is Alice, by applying the subject matter eligibility analysis and flowchart according to MPEP § 2106. And, based on this standard, the claims are non-statutory, and correctly rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
In the context of 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), Unclear Scope, paragraphs 15-16 of the Non-Final Rejection Office Action dated March 17, 2026, Applicant has amended claims 13 and 17 to render the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), Unclear Scope, moot. Claims 13 and 17 have been amended to eliminate the claim language “by a first server of the email system” and “by the first server of the email system” in the limitations for “transmitting” and “receiving”, respectively, which makes it clear that it is the processor of the email system performing these limitations. Examiner hereby rescinds the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), Unclear Scope, paragraphs 15-16 of the Non-Final Rejection Office Action dated March 17, 2026.
In the context of 35 U.S.C. § 102, in the Final Rejection Office Action dated March 17, 2026, Applicant has amended to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102. Claim 1 now recites “identifying a first email received by a first email account from a second email account, and performing, by an email system, operations comprising: …” The recitation no longer suggests or makes a feature or step optional. Examiner hereby rescinds the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102 for claims 1-12 of the Final Rejection Office Action dated March 17, 2026.
In the context of 35 U.S.C. § 103, in the Non-Final Rejection Office Action dated March 17, 2026, Applicant submits during the interview on 06/16/2026, proposed claims were discussed, and it was indicated that amending claims based upon the proposed claim amendments would advance prosecution and require further search and consideration. Independent claims 1, 13, and 17 are amended based upon the proposed claim amendments and are therefore believed to overcome the rejection. At least some support may be provided in [0116] of the instant application. Therefore, withdrawal of the rejection and allowance of the pending claims is respectfully requested.
Applicant has amended independent claims 1, 13, and 17 to recite the limitation “… that the user is determined to be authorized to perform based upon the verification response …”, and believes this amendment overcomes the current 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection.
Examiner has considered these arguments and is not persuaded. Examiner submits that
Anderson, C/L 2/45-55, “… the payment service, based on the email message, can identify the computing device of the consumer, verify that the email message has been sent from an email address of the consumer, and verify that the computing device is the only one capable of having produced the e-mail message. Having verified the email message (and the authenticity of the request to transfer money), the payment service initiates the process to transfer the payment amount. Hence, the technology provides not only convenience in the transfer of the payment, but also security in the transfer for both the consumer and the recipient …”; C/L 3/20-45, “… After sending the e-mail, the computing device can then make a separate secure connection to the authentication engine and supplies both the message token and the app token (e.g., by transmitting a token message containing the message token and the app token). The authentication engine can verify that the email was sent by the user (i.e., from the computing device) by taking the message and app tokens included in the token message supplied via the secure connection, recomputing the message token from the app token, and comparing the recomputed message token to the message token included in the email received independently through a different channel (e.g., from the native email application). If the recomputed message token and the message token match, verification is successful. Such verification provides proof that the computing device making the secure connection is the same one that generated the email (using native email application executing on the device). By completing this verification, the authentication engine verifies that the computing device is the only one capable of having produced the e-mail that included the message token. Such verification constitutes a "login" to a service provider (e.g., a payment processing service, an online video content provider, etc.) without providing a username or password. Hence, the user, on the front end, is relieved of the burden of having to complete manually the process of account creation and login every time the user desires to make a payment transfer ...), which discloses identifying the computing device of the consumer, verifying that the email message has been sent from an email address of the consumer, and verifying that the computing device is the only one capable of having produced the e-mail message; and after having verified the email message and the authenticity of the request to transfer money, the payment service initiates the process to transfer the payment amount. Therefore, Anderson, C/L 2/45-55 and C/L 3/20-45, discloses, teaches, and/or suggests the recited amendment “that the user is determined to be authorized to perform based upon the verification response”.
Therefore, the amended claim 1, as well as amended claims 13 and 17, stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Dependent claims 2-12 which depend on claim 1; dependent claims 14-16 which depend on claim 13; and claims 18-20, which depend on claim 17, also stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for claims 1-20 is maintained.
Examiner also finds the applicant argument for the limitation in claim 11, “The method of claim 1, wherein the verification response controls generation of the selectable input within the email interface such that the email interface is modified from a first state lacking the selectable input to a second state including the selectable input”, moot in view of new grounds of rejection, and therefore, amended claim 11 is not patentable. Amended claim 11 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C §103 in the analysis below, and is therefore, not patentable in view of Herlitz (US 20150261391 A1) now applying to the applicable amended sections for claim 11. Therefore, the current rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for claims 1-20 is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. § 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
In the instant case, claims 1-12 are directed to a “method”, claims 13-16 are directed to a “system”, and claims 17-20 are directed to a “non-transitory machine readable medium”. Therefore, these claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Claim 1 recites “performing actions using email”, which is a form of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (i.e., organizing human activity), and an abstract idea. Specifically, the claim recites “identifying a first email received by a first email account from a second email account, and performing, by an email system, operations comprising: transmitting, by a first server of the email system, a verification message to a second server associated with a first entity associated with the second email account that transmitted the first email; receiving, by the first server of the email system, a verification response to the verification message from the second server associated with the first entity; and determining, based upon the verification response received from the second server, that a user associated with the first email account is authorized to perform an entity action corresponding to the first entity; responsive to determining, based upon the verification response received from the second server, that the user associated with the first email account that received the first email is authorized to perform the entity action corresponding to the first entity associated with the second email account that transmitted the first email: after the first email is received by the first email account from the second email account, selectively displaying, on a first client device via an email interface associated with the first email account that received the first email, a selectable input corresponding to performing the entity action, corresponding to the first entity associated with the second email account that transmitted the first email, that the user is determined to be authorized to perform based upon the verification response; receiving, by the email system, a request to perform the entity action via a selection of the selectable input within the email interface; and responsive to receiving the request to perform the entity action, displaying an action interface, on the first client device within the email interface, corresponding to performing the entity action”. The abstract idea is in italics, and the additional elements are in bold. (MPEP §2106.04 II.A.1.).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A (MPEP §2106.04 II.A.2.), the additional elements of the claim, such as “an email system”, “a first server of the email system”, “a second server”, “selectively displaying, on a first client device via an email interface associated with the first email account that received the first email, a selectable input corresponding to performing the entity action”, “a selection of the selectable input within the email interface”, and “displaying an action interface, on the first client device within the email interface”, amount to merely “apply it”, as they represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they do no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to implementing the acts of “performing actions using email”.
When analyzed under step 2B (MPEP 2106.05 I.A.), the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claim merely describes the concept of “performing actions using email” using computer technology (e.g., “a first server of the email system” and “a first client device”). Therefore, these additional elements do no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea. And as the computer does no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea, they do not improve computer functionality nor improve another technology or technical field. Therefore, claim 1 is non-statutory.
Claim 13 also recites the abstract idea of “performing actions using email”, as well the additional elements of “an email system comprising: a processor; and memory comprising processor-executable instructions that, when executed by the processor, causes the processor to perform operations, the operations comprising: …”, “a second server”, “displaying, on a first client device via an email interface associated with the first email account that received the first email, a selectable input corresponding to performing the entity action”, and “a selection of the selectable input”, which amount to merely “apply it”, as they represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they do no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to implementing the acts of “performing actions using email”.
When analyzed under step 2B (MPEP 2106.05 I.A.), the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claim merely describes the concept of “performing actions using email” using computer technology (e.g., “an email system comprising: a processor; and memory comprising processor-executable instructions that, when executed by the processor, causes the processor to perform operations, the operations comprising: …” and “a second server”). Therefore, these additional elements do no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea. And as the computer does no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea, they do not improve computer functionality nor improve another technology or technical field. Therefore, claim 13 is non-statutory.
Claim 17 also recites the abstract idea of “performing actions using email”, as well the additional elements of “a non-transitory machine readable medium having stored thereon processor-executable instructions that, when executed by a processor of a communication system, cause the processor of the communication system to perform operations, the operations comprising: …”, “a second client device”, “a second server”, “a first client device”, “displaying, on the first client device via a communication interface associated with the first user account associated with the first client device that received the first message, a selectable input corresponding to performing the entity action”, “a selection of the selectable input” and “displaying an action interface, on the first client device within the communication interface”, which amount to merely “apply it”, as they represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they do no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to implementing the acts of “performing actions using email”.
When analyzed under step 2B (MPEP 2106.05 I.A.), the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claim merely describes the concept of “performing actions using email” using computer technology (e.g., “a non-transitory machine readable medium having stored thereon processor-executable instructions that, when executed by a processor of a communication system, cause the processor of the communication system to perform operations, the operations comprising: …” and “a first client device”). Therefore, these additional elements do no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea. And as the computer does no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea, they do not improve computer functionality nor improve another technology or technical field. Therefore, claim 17 is non-statutory.
Dependent claims 2-12, 14-16, and 18-20 further describe the abstract idea of “performing actions using email”, which is insufficient to overcome the rejections of claims 1, 13, and 17.
Dependent claims 2-7, 10-11, 14-16, and 18-20 do not recite any new additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and that do no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to implementing the acts of “performing actions using email”, when analyzed under Step 2A, Prong Two.
Dependent claims 8-9 recite the new additional element of “display the action message”, which does no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea. And, as it does no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea, it does not improve computer functionality nor improve another technology nor technical field.
Dependent claim 12 recites the new additional element of “display a confirmation message”, which does no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea. And, as it does no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea, it does not improve computer functionality nor improve another technology nor technical field.
Hence, claims 1-20 are not patent eligible.
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 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U. S. 1. 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-10 and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar et al (U. S. Patent Application Publication No. US 20160219003 A1), herein referred to as Kumar, and in further view of Andersen et al (U. S. Patent No. US 9165291 B1), herein referred to as Andersen.
Regarding claims 1, 13, and 17, Kumar discloses a method, comprising: … after the first email is received by the first email account from the second email account, selectively displaying, on a first client device via an email interface associated with the first email account that received the first email (FIG. 1, items 104, 106, 108, 110, 112; para 18, “… the email user interface (e.g., an email office productivity desktop application) may provide access to an email comprising email content. At 104, the email content may be analyzed (e.g., text of the email content may be parsed) to identify an entity (e.g., and/or other entities) referenced by the email content. The entity may comprise a person entity, a business entity, a consumer product entity, a time entity, a location entity, an object entity, and/or any other type of entity … the email content may comprise the text "Hey Dan, we should meet tonight at the New Theater near you to watch that Holiday Movie". A New Theater entity, a Holiday Movie entity, and/or other entities (e.g., a current location entity, a friend entity, a time entity, etc.) may be identified …”; para 19, “At 106, a user intent to accomplish a task may be determined based upon the entity … a user intent to purchase movie tickets for the Holiday Movie playing at the New Theater may be determined … the task may not comprise an email related task that may otherwise be accomplished by the email user interface. At 108, an action that may be performed to accomplish the task may be presented through the email user interface … a book movie tickets action may be presented. At 110, a third party app (e.g., and/or other third party apps) capable for performing the action to accomplish the task maybe presented through the email user interface … the third party app may be selected for presentation based upon supplemental content derived from information associated with a user device hosting the email user interface (e.g., the user device may comprise a ticket reservation receipt from a particular third party app that may allow the user to confirm a prior reservation for the Holiday Movie), a user profile (e.g., the user may have an account with a particular third party app ), and/or a user preference (e.g., a third party app capable of accepting payments from an online payment account may be used based upon the user having a (e.g., historical) preference to make purchases using the online payment account, as opposed to a credit card) … a third party app may comprise functionality associated with various types of tasks, such as a consumer good purchase task, a reservation task, an obtain directions task, an access digital content task (e.g., an article, a webpage, a social network profile, a text document, an image, text, audio, video, etc.), a social network task (e.g., create an event or post), obtain additional information related to an entity task (e.g., preview a book), etc. …”; para 21, “At 112, responsive to selection of the third party app (e.g., a movie app ), the third party app may be executed within the email user interface (e.g., without transitioning the user away from the email user interface and/ or an immersive email experience provided by the email user interface) … the third party app may be displayed within a first portion of the email user interface, while email content or UI elements may be displayed within a second portion of the email user interface …”), a selectable input corresponding to performing the entity action, corresponding to the first entity associated with the second email account that transmitted the first email (FIG. 2A, items 214, 216, 218, 224; para 24, “The action broker component 214 may be configured to identify one or more actions that may be used to accomplish the one or more tasks … a view menu action 218 may be used to accomplish the view menu task, and a reserve seats action 224 may be used to accomplish the book a table task. The action broker component 214 may be configured to present the one or more actions through the email user interface 202 (e.g., presenting 212 through an action selection interface 216 hosted within the email user interface 202). The action broker component 214 may be configured to identify one or more third party apps capable of performing the one or more actions … a menus r us app 220 and a food expert app 222 may be identified as being capable of performing the view menu action 218 … a table reservation app 226 may be identified as being capable of performing the reserve seats action 224 … identifying a third party app, the third party app may be selected based upon supplemental content, such as information associated with the device (e.g., a third party app currently installed for use through the email user interface 202, an ability to connect to an application marketplace to download a third party app, etc.), a user profile (e.g., a user may have an account with a third party app ), and/ or user preference data (e.g., the user may prefer a particular third party app) … the action broker component 214 may present the one or more third party apps within the email user interface 202 without transitioning a user away from an immersive email experience provided by the email user interface 202 (e.g., presenting 212 through the action selection interface 216) …”); …
receiving, by the email system (FIG. 2B, items 202, 230; para 25, “ … FIG. 2B illustrates an example of a system 230 configured for providing a third party app through an email user interface 202 …”) a request to perform the entity action via a selection of the selectable input within the email interface (FIG. 2B, items 202, 204, 206, 214, 230; para 25, “… the system 230 may comprise a task determination component 206 and/or an action broker component 214. The system 230 may be associated with the email user interface 202 configured to provide access to one or more emails, such as an email comprising email content 204 … the task determination component 206 may have identified an Emerald Tavern entity 208 associated with the email content 204, and the action broker component 214 may have presented one or more third party apps capable of performing an action to accomplish a task associated with the Emerald Tavern entity 208. …”); and
responsive to receiving the request to perform the entity action, displaying an action interface, on the first client device within the email interface, corresponding to performing the entity action (FIG. 2B, items 202, 204, 206, 212, 214, 230; para 25, “ … the system 230 may comprise a task determination component 206 and/or an action broker component 214. The system 230 may be associated with the email user interface 202 configured to provide access to one or more emails, such as an email comprising email content 204 … the task determination component 206 may have identified an Emerald Tavern entity 208 associated with the email content 204, and the action broker component 214 may have presented one or more third party apps capable of performing an action to accomplish a task associated with the Emerald Tavern entity 208 …”; para 26, “The action broker component 214 may be configured to receive a selection 232 of a third party app presented through the email user interface 202 (e.g., a user may select a table reservation app 236, capable of performing a reserve seats action (e.g., 224 FIG. 2A), from an action selection interface (e.g., 216 FIG. 2A) displayed through the email user interface 202). The action broker component 214 may be configured to execute 234 the third party app within the email user interface 202 … the action broker component 214 may execute 234 a table reservation app 236 within the email user interface 202. The table reservation app 236 may be executed according to a user intent execution context corresponding to the Emerald Tavern entity 208, the reserve seats action (e.g., 224 FIG. 2A), and/or supplemental content … the table reservation app 236 may utilize a restaurant name parameter, a date parameter, a number of seat parameter, and/or other parameters not illustrated in order to perform the reserve seats action (e.g., 224 FIG. 2A). A value of Emerald Tavern, identified by the Emerald Tavern entity 208, may be assigned to the restaurant name parameter, and a 5:00 on July 5th value 260 may be assigned to the date parameter. The restaurant name parameter and the date parameter may be included within the user intent execution context. The user intent execution context may be passed to the table reservation app 236 for execution … the table reservation app 236 may be opened to a state that may be contextually relevant to the user (e.g., the table reservation app 236 may be opened to a table reservation action form having the Emerald Tavern and/or 5:00 on July 5th already populated within the table reservation action form …)”.
Kumar does not specifically disclose, however, Andersen discloses identifying a first email is received by a first email account from a second email account, and performing, by a email system, (FIG. 4, items 410, 420, 450, 460, 470; C/L 11/10-21, “… FIG. 4, receiving operation 410 receives a request to access an application … access to the application may require user authentication before allowing access … the application may launch and authenticate the user upon receiving a transaction request (e.g., transfer $20 to a recipient, access an account, etc.). Determination operation 420 determines the native e-mail application running, or executing, on a computing device. This operation can ensure that the user has properly logged into the account and is able to send an e-mail from the computing device …”; C/L 11/28-42, “… Once the e-mail has received, determination operation 450 determines if the e-mail address is registered with the service provider. If determination operation 450 determines that the e-mail address has previously been registered, then determination operation 450 branches to authentication operation 460 where the e-mail address is authenticated. If determination operation 450 determines that the e-mail address has not previously been registered, then determination operation 450 branches to registration operation 470 where the user is enrolled with the service provider … if a user subsequently accesses the application after the user has enrolled (e.g., by going through the flow in FIG. 4), then no e-mail is generated and the application can use the information acquired from the previous enrollment to determine if the user has access …”) operations comprising:
transmitting, by a first server of the email system (FIG. 1, items 120; C/L 6/1-19, “Authentication engine 120 can be executing, or running, on one or more servers and used to authenticate users and/or manage access to service provider 130. Authentication and access control may be based on information received through various user interfaces running on computing devices 110A--110N or other interactions, communications, and/or other inputs (e.g., e-mails, tokens, and/or communications via other channels). Authentication engine 120 can be calibrated/ configured by individual companies or service providers, based on risk tolerance and/or other business objectives, to authenticate users … in addition to rendering an authentication decision, authentication engine 120 may be configured to compute a risk profile or score. That profile may be used by itself to make a decision, or it may be used in conjunction with other profiles, scores, and/or business practices. Authentication engine 120 may also be configured to recommend an access level the user should be granted …”; FIG. 3, item 310; C/L 9/25-30, “… FIG. 3, authentication engine 120 can include memory 305, one or more processors 310, message receiving module 315, token verification module 320, e-mail verification module 325, authentication module 330, access module 335, accounting module 345, registration module 350, and graphical user interface (GUI) generation module 355 …”), a verification message to a second server (FIG. 1, item 130; C/L 6/24-29, “… Service provider 130 may be a payment processing system in some embodiments. A sender can use a payment sender device to send a payment to a payment receiver device using a payment processing system. Payment sender device and payment receiver device can be computing devices 110A-110N …”) associated with a first entity associated with the second email account that transmitted the first email (C/L 3/46-58, “… the authentication engine can work in coordination with a spoof-checking mechanism to verify that the e-mail was sent from the user's e-mail address (i.e., the e-mail was not spoofed). A user's e-mail address is spoofed when an e-mail is sent from a different e-mail address, but is made to look like it was sent from the user's e-mail address. The spoof-checking mechanism can utilize a set of criteria to validate whether the email has been actually sent from a user-ID and a domain specified in the email address in order to determine if the email is authentic, spoofed, or uncertain. The spoof-checking mechanism can be, or a part of, the E-mail verification module 325 discussed below in reference to FIG. 3 …”; C/L 6/1-19, “Authentication engine 120 can be executing, or running, on one or more servers and used to authenticate users and/or manage access to service provider 130. Authentication and access control may be based on information received through various user interfaces running on computing devices 110A--110N or other interactions, communications, and/or other inputs (e.g., e-mails, tokens, and/or communications via other channels). Authentication engine 120 can be calibrated/ configured by individual companies or service providers, based on risk tolerance and/or other business objectives, to authenticate users … in addition to rendering an authentication decision, authentication engine 120 may be configured to compute a risk profile or score. That profile may be used by itself to make a decision, or it may be used in conjunction with other profiles, scores, and/or business practices. Authentication engine 120 may also be configured to recommend an access level the user should be granted …”; C/L 10/15-25, “… E-mail verification module 325 can be used to determine if the e-mail messages are from forged sender addresses (i.e., spoofed e-mails). E-mail verification module 325 may combine a variety of known and proprietary techniques for determining the authenticity of the sender … E-mail verification module 325 verifies that an e-mail is authentically from a user's e-mail address. The user's e-mail address is USERID@DOMAIN.com. E-mail verification module 325 verifies that the e-mail is from the domain (i.e. DOMAIN-.com), and that the e-mail is from USERID, the USERID verified to be at DOMAIN.com …”);
receiving, by the first server of the email system (FIG. 1, item 120; C/L 6/1-15; FIG. 3, item 310; C/L9/25-30), a verification response to the verification message from the second server associated with the first entity (C/L 10/25-34, “… when e-mail verification module 325 is not able to verify that the e-mail is authentic, the e-mail verification module sends an e-mail to the user's e-mail address to verify the authenticity of the received e-mail. The user indicates the authenticity of the e-mail previously received by e-mail verification module 325 by … clicking on a hyperlink in the e-mail sent to the user. E-mail verification module 325 receives notification that the user's clicking on the hyperlink, and authenticates the previously received e-mail …”); and
determining, based upon the verification response received from the second server, that a user associated with the first email account is authorized to perform an entity action corresponding to the first entity (FIG. 3, items 320, 330; C/L 10/35-51, “… Authentication module 330 can use the information from token verification module 320 and e-mail verification module 325 along with other information in making an authentication decision. The decision generated by authentication module 330 is used by access module 335 in granting or denying access to a user account held at the service provider … the decision generated by authentication module 330 is used in granting or denying access to a restricted command … Examples of accounts that a login command may log a user in to include a social media account, an account at a financial institution, an account at a bank, an account at a credit union, an account at a merchant, an account at a service provider, or an account at a rental provider, among others …”);
responsive to determining, based upon the verification response received from the second server, that the user associated with the first email account that received the first email is authorized to perform the entity action corresponding to the first entity associated with the second email account that transmitted the first email (FIG. 3, items 320, 330; C/L 10/35-51): …
With respect to claim 13, Andersen further discloses an email system comprising:
a processor (FIG. 8, items 815, 870, 875; C/L 14/30-38, “… Computers may employ central processing unit (CPU) or processor (hereinafter "processor") to process information. Processors may include programmable general-purpose or special-purpose microprocessors, programmable controllers, application-specific integrated circuits (ASICs), programmable logic devices (PLDs ), embedded components, combination of such devices and the like. Processors execute program components in response to user and/or system generated requests …”; C/L 14/54-55, “Processor interface 840 may facilitate communication between co-processor devices 815 and co-processor 875…”); and
memory comprising processor-executable instructions that, when executed by the processor, causes the processor to perform operations (FIG. 8, items 880, 885, 890, 895; C/L 14/42-45, “… The controller 800 may include clock 865, CPU 870, memory such as read only memory (ROM) 885 and random access memory (RAM) 880 and co-processor 875 among 45 others …”; C/L 15/49-16/3, “… Computer executable instructions and data may be stored in memory (e.g., registers, cache memory, random access 50 memory, flash, etc.) which is accessible by processors. The controller 800 may employ various forms of memory including on-chip CPU memory (e.g., registers), RAM 880, ROM 885, and storage devices 890. Storage devices 890 may employ any number of tangible, non-transitory storage devices or systems such as fixed or removable magnetic disk drive, an optical drive, solid state memory devices and other processor-readable storage media. Computer-executable instructions stored in the memory may have one or more program modules such as routines, programs, objects, components, data structures, and so on that perform particular tasks or implement particular abstract data types … the memory may contain operating system (OS) component 895, modules and other components, database tables, and the like. These modules/components may be stored and accessed from the storage devices, including from external storage devices accessible through an interface bus …”), the operations comprising: …
With respect to claim 17, Andersen further discloses a non-transitory machine readable medium having stored thereon processor-executable instructions that, when executed by a processor of a communication system, cause the processor of the communication system to perform operations (C/L 4/38-51, “… embodiments may include a machine-readable medium having stored thereon instructions that may be used to cause one or more processors to perform the methods, variations of the methods, and other operations described here. The machine-readable medium may include, but is not limited to, floppy diskettes, optical discs, compact disc read-only memories (CD-ROMs), magneto-optical discs, read-only memories (ROMs), random access memories (RAMs), erasable programmable read-only memories (EPROMs), electrically erasable programmable read-only memories (EEPROMs), application-specific integrated circuits (ASICs), magnetic or optical cards, flash memory, or other type of media/machine-readable medium suitable for storing electronic instructions…”), the operations comprising: …
Andersen discloses payment transactions by email. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include payment transactions by email, as in Andersen, to improve and/or enhance the technology of task completion in email using third party app, as in Kumar, because it would amount to combining elements that in the combination would perform the same function as they functioned separately. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have been motivated to combine the references to provide an email mechanism for consumer-to-consumer payments over the internet, balancing the need for security and authentication, as well as the need for simplicity of execution.
Regarding claim 2, Kumar and Andersen disclose the limitations of claim 1. Kumar further discloses the method of claim 1, comprising: receiving, by the email system (FIG. 2B, items 202, 230; para 25, “ … FIG. 2B illustrates an example of a system 230 configured for providing a third party app through an email user interface 202 configured to provide access to one or more emails, such as an email comprising email content 204 …”), a request to open the first email from the first client device (FIG. 1, item 112; para 21, “ … At 112, responsive to selection of the third party app (e.g., a movie app ), the third party app may be executed within the email user interface (e.g., without transitioning the user away from the email user interface and/ or an immersive email experience provided by the email user interface) …, the third party app may be displayed within a first portion of the email user interface, while email content or UI elements may be displayed within a second portion of the email user interface. The third party app may be executed according to a user intent execution context corresponding to the entity, the action, the email content, supplemental content, and/or the task, etc. … instead of merely opening the movie app to a start screen (e.g., which may force the user to navigate through the movie app to get to movie booking functionality and/or input additional information that may have been already comprised within the email content), the movie app may be opened to a movie booking screen for the Holiday Movie at the New Theater …”).
Regarding claims 3 and 15, Kumar and Andersen disclose the limitations of claims 1 and 13. Andersen further discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the displaying the selectable input is performed by displaying the selectable input in association with a first list item (FIG. 2A, item 202, 204, 206, 214; para 23, “ … FIG. 2A illustrates an example of a system 200 configured for providing a third party app through an email user interface 202. The system 200 may comprise a task determination component 206 and/or an action broker component 214. The system 200 may be associated with the email user interface 202 configured to provide access to one or more emails, such as an email comprising email content 204. The task determination component 206 may be configured to analyze the email content 204 (e.g., text of the email content 204 may be parsed) to identify one or more entities … an Emerald Tavern entity 208 and/or other entities may be identified based upon the email content 204 ( e.g., a person Dan entity, a food entity, a time entity, etc.). The task determination component 206 may be configured to determine a user intent 210 to accomplish one or more tasks based upon the Emerald Tavern entity 208, the email content 204, and/or supplemental content (e.g., information regarding a computing device hosting the email user interface 202, a user profile, and/or user preference data, etc.) … a view menu task, a book a table task, and/or other tasks may be determined …”), corresponding to the first email, of a list of emails corresponding to a plurality of emails received by the first email account (FIG. 2B, items 202, 204, 206, 230; para 25, “ … FIG. 2B illustrates an example of a system 230 configured for providing a third party app through an email user interface 202. It may be appreciated that in an example, the system 230 corresponds to the system 200 of FIG. 2A … the system 230 may comprise a task determination component 206 and/or an action broker component 214. The system 230 may be associated with the email user interface 202 configured to provide access to one or more emails, such as an email comprising email content 204 … the task determination component 206 may have identified an Emerald Tavern entity 208 associated with the email content 204, and the action broker component 214 may have presented one or more third party apps capable of performing an action to accomplish a task associated with the Emerald Tavern entity 208 …”).
Regarding claim 4, Kumar and Andersen disclose the limitations of claims 1-2. Kumar further discloses the method of claim 2, wherein the displaying the selectable input is performed responsive to receiving, by the email system, the request to open the first email from the first client device (FIG. 3A, items 302, 306, 310, 314, 328; para 27, “ … FIG. 3A illustrates an example of a system 300 configured for providing a third party app through an email user interface 302. The system 300 may comprise a task determination component 306 and/or an action broker component 314. The system 300 may be associated with the email user interface 302 configured to provide access to one or more emails, such as an email comprising email content 304. The task determination component 306 may be configured to analyze the email content 304 (e.g., text of the email content 304 may be parsed) to identify one or more entities … a Vegas entity 308 and/or other entities ( e.g., a travel entity, an entertainment entity, a person Dan entity, a date entity, etc.) may be identified based upon the email content 304. The task determination component 306 may be configured to determine a user intent 310 to accomplish one or more tasks based upon the Vegas entity 308, the email content 304, and/or supplemental content 312 (e.g., a device hosting the email user interface may have a current location of Ohio, which may indicate that the user intent 210 may relate to booking an air flight and/or reserving a hotel as opposed to obtaining driving directions if the user was located relatively closer to Vegas) …, a book flight task, a hotel reservation task, and/or other tasks may be identified based upon the Vegas entity 308 and/or the supplemental content 312 …”; para 28, “… The action broker component 314 may be configured to identify one or more actions that may be used to accomplish the one or more tasks … a book flights action 318 may be used to accomplish the book flight task, and a hotel reservation action 324 may be used to accomplish the hotel reservation task. The action broker component 314 may be configured to present the one or more actions through the email user interface 302 (e.g., presenting 328 through an action selection interface 316 hosted within the email user interface 302) … the action broker component 314 may present the one or more third party apps within the email user interface 302 without transitioning a user away from an immersive email experience provided by the email user interface 302 (e.g., presenting 328 through the action selection interface 316) … ”).
Regarding claim 5, Kumar and Andersen disclose the limitations of claim 1. Kumar further discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the displaying the selectable input is performed responsive to performing, by the email system (FIG. 2B, items 202, 230; para 25, “ … FIG. 2B illustrates an example of a system 230 configured for providing a third party app through an email user interface 202 …”), the operations (FIG. 4A, items 402, 404, 406, 410, 414, 416, 424; para 31, “ … FIG. 4A illustrates an example of a system 400 configured for providing access to a third party app native version executed according to a user intent execution context derived from email content. The system 400 may comprise a task determination component 406 and/or an action broker component 414. The system 400 may be associated with an email user interface 402 configured to provide access to one or more emails, such as an email comprising email content 404. The task determination component 406 may be configured to analyze the email content 404 (e.g., text of the email content 404 may be parsed) to identify one or more entities … a stock entity 408 and/or other entities may be identified based upon the email content 404. The task determination component 406 may be configured to determine a user intent 410 to accomplish one or more tasks based upon the stock entity 408, the email content 404, and/or supplemental content (e.g., a user profile indicating that the user owns a significant amount of stock of Company (X)) … a stock quote task, a sell stock task, and/or other tasks may be determined …”; para 32, “The action broker component 414 may be configured to identify one or more actions that may be used to accomplish the one or more tasks … a stock quote action 418 may be used to accomplish the stock quote task and/or the sell stock task. The action broker component 414 may be configured to present the one or more actions through the email user interface 402 (e.g., presenting 424 through an action selection interface 416 hosted within the email user interface 402) … the action broker component 414 may present the one or more third party apps within the email user interface 402 without transitioning a user away from an immersive email experience provided by the email user interface 402 (e.g., presenting 424 through the action selection interface 416) … ”).
Regarding claim 6, Kumar and Andersen disclose the limitations of claims 1 and 5. Kumar further discloses the method of claim 5, wherein the displaying the selectable input is performed by displaying the selectable input on a first location of the first email (FIG. 1, item 112; para 21, “ … At 112, responsive to selection of the third party app (e.g., a movie app ), the third party app may be executed within the email user interface (e.g., without transitioning the user away from the email user interface and/ or an immersive email experience provided by the email user interface) … the third party app may be displayed within a first portion of the email user interface, while email content or UI elements may be displayed within a second portion of the email user interface …”).
Regarding claim 7, Kumar and Andersen disclose the limitations of claims 1 and 5-6. Kumar further discloses the method of claim 6, comprising: receiving, by the email system (FIG. 2B, items 202, 230; para 25, “ … FIG. 2B illustrates an example of a system 230 configured for providing a third party app through an email user interface 202 …”), a message, comprising information associated with the entity action (FIG. 1, item 104; para 18, “ … the email user interface (e.g., an email office productivity desktop application) may provide access to an email comprising email content. At 104, the email content may be analyzed (e.g., text of the email content may be parsed) to identify an entity (e.g., and/or other entities) referenced by the email content. The entity may comprise a person entity, a business entity, a consumer product entity, a time entity, a location entity, an object entity, and/or any other type of entity … the email content may comprise the text "Hey Dan, we should meet tonight at the New Theater near you to watch that Holiday Movie". A New Theater entity, a Holiday Movie entity, and/or other entities ( e.g., a current location entity, a friend entity, a time entity, etc.) may be identified …”), from the second server (FIG. 1, item 110; para 19, “At 106, a user intent to accomplish a task may be determined based upon the entity … a user intent to purchase movie tickets for the Holiday Movie playing at the New Theater may be determined … the task may not comprise an email related task that may otherwise be accomplished by the email user interface. At 108, an action that may be performed to accomplish the task may be presented through the email user interface … a book movie tickets action may be presented… At 110, a third party app (e.g., and/or other third party apps) capable for performing the action to accomplish the task maybe presented through the email user interface … the third party app may be selected for presentation based upon supplemental content derived from information associated …”); and
generating, by the email system (FIG. 2B, items 202, 230; para 25, “ … FIG. 2B illustrates an example of a system 230 configured for providing a third party app through an email user interface 202 …”), an action message based upon the information associated with the entity action (FIG. 2B, items 202, 206, 214; para 25, “ … FIG. 2B illustrates an example of a system 230 configured for providing a third party app through an email user interface 202 … the system 230 corresponds to the system 200 of FIG. 2A … the system 230 may comprise a task determination component 206 and/or an action broker component 214. The system 230 may be associated with the email user interface 202 configured to provide access to one or more emails, such as an email comprising email content 204 … the task determination component 206 may have identified an Emerald Tavern entity 208 associated with the email content 204, and the action broker component 214 may have presented one or more third party apps capable of performing an action to accomplish a task associated with the Emerald Tavern entity 208 …”).
Regarding claim 8, Kumar and Andersen disclose the limitations of claims 1 and 5-7. Kumar further discloses the method of claim 7, comprising: providing, by the email system (FIG. 2B, items 202, 230; para 25, “ … FIG. 2B illustrates an example of a system 230 configured for providing a third party app through an email user interface 202 …”), for display the action message in association with the selectable input (FIG. 3A, items 302, 306, 314, 316; para 27, “ … FIG. 3A illustrates an example of a system 300 configured for providing a third party app through an email user interface 302. The system 300 may comprise a task determination component 306 and/or an action broker com-ponent 314. The system 300 may be associated with the email user interface 302 configured to provide access to one or more emails, such as an email comprising email content 304. The task determination component 306 may be configured to analyze the email content 304 (e.g., text of the email content 304 may be parsed) to identify one or more entities … a Vegas entity 308 and/or other entities (e.g., a travel entity, an entertainment entity, a person Dan entity, a date entity, etc.) may be identified based upon the email content 304. The task determination component 306 may be configured to determine a user intent 310 to accomplish one or more tasks based upon the Vegas entity 308, the email content 304, and/or supplemental content 312 (e.g., a device hosting the email user interface may have a current location of Ohio, which may indicate that the user intent 210 may relate to booking an air flight and/or reserving a hotel as opposed to obtaining driving directions if the user was located relatively closer to Vegas) … a book flight task, a hotel reservation task, and/or other tasks may be identified based upon the Vegas entity 308 and/or the supplemental content 312 …”).
Regarding claim 9, Kumar and Andersen disclose the limitations of claims 1 and 5-7. Kumar further discloses the method of claim 7, comprising: providing, by the email system (FIG. 2B, items 202, 230; para 25, “ … FIG. 2B illustrates an example of a system 230 configured for providing a third party app through an email user interface 202 …”), for display the action message within the action interface (FIG. 4A, items 402, 406, 414, 416, 424; para 32, “ … The action broker component 414 may be configured to identify one or more actions that may be used to accomplish the one or more tasks … a stock quote action 418 may be used to accomplish the stock quote task and/or the sell stock task. The action broker component 414 may be configured to present the one or more actions through the email user interface 402 (e.g., presenting 424 through an action selection interface 416 hosted within the email user interface 402). The action broker component 414 may be configured to identify one or more third party apps capable of performing the one or more actions … a stock evaluation app 420 may be identified as being capable of performing the stock quote action 418. In this way, the action broker component 414 may present the one or more third party apps within the email user interface 402 without transitioning a user away from an immersive email experience provided by the email user interface 402 (e.g., presenting 424 through the action selection interface 416) …”).
Regarding claim 10, Kumar and Andersen disclose the limitations of claims 1 and 5-7. Kumar does not specifically disclose, however, Andersen discloses the method of claim 7, wherein: the entity action is associated with transmitting, utilizing the email system (FIG. 4, items 410, 420; C/L 11/10-21, “… FIG. 4, receiving operation 410 receives a request to access an application … access to the application may require user authentication before allowing access … the application may launch and authenticate the user upon receiving a transaction request (e.g., transfer $20 to a recipient, access an account, etc.). Determination operation 420 determines the native e-mail application running, or executing, on a computing device. This operation can ensure that the user has properly logged into the account and is able to send an e-mail from the computing device …”; FIG. 4, items 450, 460, 470; C/L 11/28-42, “… Once the e-mail has received, determination operation 450 determines if the e-mail address is registered with the service provider. If determination operation 450 determines that the e-mail address has previously been registered, then determination operation 450 branches to authentication operation 460 where the e-mail address is authenticated. If determination operation 450 determines that the e-mail address has not previously been registered, then determination operation 450 branches to registration operation 470 where the user is enrolled with the service provider … if a user subsequently accesses the application after the user has enrolled (e.g., by going through the flow in FIG. 4), then no e-mail is generated and the application can use the information acquired from the previous enrollment to determine if the user has access …”), a payment to an account associated with the first entity (FIG. 5, items 510, 530, 540; C/L 11/43-48, “… FIG. 5 is a flowchart illustrating a set of operations 500 for sending a cash payment over e-mail in accordance with various embodiments of the disclosed technology. E-mail operation 510 generates a payment e-mail with one or more pre-populated fields and an embedded security token on an electronic device …”, C/L 11/54-58, “… E-mail operation 510 can be performed by the electronic device operated by a sender user, such as the computing device 110A-110N of FIG. 1… e-mail operation 510 can be performed by a payment facilitation application on the electronic device …”; C/L 12/40-63, “… The electronic device can transmit the payment e-mail in response to a user indication to send in transmission operation 530. The user indication … can be a click of a button on an e-mail application of the electronic device. A payment processing system, such as the payment processing system, can receive the payment e-mail prior to transmitting the payment e-mail to the recipient e-mail address to authenticate the payment e-mail during receiving operation 540 … the receipt of the payment e-mail is enabled by the payment e-mail sending (e.g., carbon copying) the e-mail to an e-mail address associated with the payment processing system.
The payment processing system can determine whether there are multiple financial accounts associated with the sender e-mail address. If and when the payment processing system determines there is financial account information associated with the sender e-mail address, the payment processing system can determine which financial account is to be used to fund the payment transaction … which financial account to use may be indicated in the embedded security token of the payment e-mail. Receiving operation 540 can include generating a payment receiving interface and including the payment receiving interface in the payment e-mail …”); and
the action message is indicative of a payment amount associated with the payment (FIG. 4, items 410, 420, 450, 460, 470; C/L 2/37-40, “ … The email message can include a payment amount to be transferred to a recipient, the recipient's name, a request for the payment service to transfer the payment amount to the recipient, and a message token …”; C/L 2/50-55, “… Having verified the email message (and the authenticity of the request to transfer money), the payment service initiates the process to transfer the payment amount … the technology provides not only convenience in the transfer of the payment, but also security in the transfer for both the consumer and the recipient …”; C/L 11/51-58, “… If the sender user has previously indicated a payment amount, the pre-populated fields can also include a subject line including the payment amount (e.g., dollar amount or other currency amount) … ”).
Andersen discloses payment transactions by email. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include payment transactions by email, as in Andersen, to improve and/or enhance the technology of task completion in email using third party app, as in Kumar, because it would amount to combining elements that in the combination would perform the same function as they functioned separately. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have been motivated to combine the references to provide the technology for simplifying consumer-to-consumer transactions by use of an email mechanism, such as a payment transaction to transfer money, utilizing an application that causes a native email application of the consumer’s computing device to transmit an email message with the payment securely.
Regarding claim 12, Kumar and Andersen disclose the limitations of claim 1. Kumar does not specifically disclose, however, Andersen discloses the method of claim 1, comprising: determining that the entity action is completed (FIG. 5, items 560, 570; C/L 13/14-21, “ … Once the payment processing system confirms that there is financial account information associated with the sender e-mail address, the payment e-mail can be delivered to the recipient e-mail address during delivery operation 560. The recipient user can then indicate an acceptance of the payment transaction through the payment receiving interface during acceptance operation 570. Alternatively the recipient user can indicate a rejection of the payment transaction …”); and
responsive to determining that the entity action is completed, providing, by the email system, for display a confirmation message, corresponding to the entity action being completed, utilizing the email interface (FIG. 7J; C/L 14/4-9, “ … FIG. 7J is an example of a confirmation screen after the payment e-mail is sent …”).
Andersen discloses payment transactions by email. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include payment transactions by email, as in Andersen, to improve and/or enhance the technology of task completion in email using third party app, as in Kumar, because it would amount to combining elements that in the combination would perform the same function as they functioned separately. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have been motivated to combine the references to provide the technology for simplifying consumer-to-consumer transactions by use of an email mechanism, such as a payment transaction to transfer money, utilizing an application that causes a native email application of the consumer’s computing device to transmit an email message with the payment securely.
Regarding claim 14, Kumar and Andersen disclose the limitations of claim 13. Kumar further discloses the email system of claim 13, the operations comprising: receiving a message, comprising information associated with the entity action, from the second server associated with the first entity (FIG. 2B, items 202, 204, 208, 230, 260; para 25, “ … FIG. 2B illustrates an example of a system 230 configured for providing a third party app through an email user interface 202 … the system 230 corresponds to the system 200 of FIG. 2A … the system 230 may comprise a task determination component 206 and/or an action broker component 214. The system 230 may be associated with the email user interface 202 configured to provide access to one or more emails, such as an email comprising email content 204 … the task determination component 206 may have identified an Emerald Tavern entity 208 associated with the email content 204, and the action broker component 214 may have presented one or more third party apps capable of performing an action to accomplish a task associated with the Emerald Tav-ern entity 208 …”; para 26, “… The action broker component 214 may be configured to receive a selection 232 of a third party app presented through the email user interface 202 (e.g., a user may select a table reservation app 236, capable of performing a reserve seats action (e.g., 224 FIG. 2A), from an action selection interface (e.g., 216 FIG. 2A) displayed through the email user interface 202) … the table reservation app 236 may utilize a restaurant name parameter, a date parameter, a number of seat parameter, and/or other parameters not illustrated in order to perform the reserve seats action (e.g., 224 FIG. 2A). A value of Emerald Tavern, identified by the Emerald Tavern entity 208, may be assigned to the restaurant name parameter, and a 5:00 on July 5th value 260 may be assigned to the date parameter. The restaurant name parameter and the date parameter may be included within the user intent execution context. The user intent execution context may be passed to the table reservation app 236 for execution. In this way, the table reservation app 236 may be opened to a state that may be contextually relevant to the user (e.g., the table reservation app 236 may be opened to a table reservation action form having the Emerald Tavern and/or 5:00 on July 5th already populated within the table reservation action form) …”).
Regarding claim 16, Kumar and Andersen disclose the limitations of claims 13-14. Kumar further discloses the email system of claim 14, wherein the performing the entity action comprises: generating a set of entity action information based upon at least one of the message or the first email (FIG. 3A, items 302, 304, 306, 314, 318, 324, 328, ; para 27, “ … FIG. 3A illustrates an example of a system 300 configured for providing a third party app through an email user interface 302. The system 300 may comprise a task determination component 306 and/or an action broker com-ponent 314. The system 300 may be associated with the email user interface 302 configured to provide access to one or more emails, such as an email comprising email content 304. The task determination component 306 may be configured to analyze the email content 304 (e.g., text of the email content 304 may be parsed) to identify one or more entities … a Vegas entity 308 and/or other entities (e.g., a travel entity, an entertainment entity, a person Dan entity, a date entity, etc.) may be identified based upon the email content 304. The task determination component 306 may be configured to determine a user intent 310 to accomplish one or more tasks based upon the Vegas entity 308, the email content 304, and/or supplemental content 312 (e.g., a device hosting the email user interface may have a current location of Ohio, which may indicate that the user intent 210 may relate to booking an air flight and/or reserving a hotel as opposed to obtaining driving directions if the user was located relatively closer to Vegas) …”; para 28, “… a book flights action 318 may be used to accomplish the book flight task, and a hotel reservation action 324 may be used to accomplish the hotel reservation task. The action broker component 314 may be configured to present the one or more actions through the email user interface 302 (e.g., presenting 328 through an action selection interface 316 hosted within the email user interface 302) … a flights r us app 320 and a flight expert app 322 may be identified as being capable of performing the book flight action 318… a hotel reservation app 326 may be identified as being capable of performing the hotel reservation action 324. In this way, the action broker component 314 may present the one or more third party apps within the email user interface 302 without transitioning a user away from an immersive email experience provided by the email user interface 302 (e.g., presenting 328 through the action selection interface 316) …”); and
transmitting the set of entity action information to the second server associated with the first entity (FIG. 3B, items 302, 304, 308, 336; para 30, “ … The action broker component 314 may be configured to execute 334 the third party app within the email user interface 302 … the action broker component 314 may execute 334 a flight expert app 336 within the email user interface 302. The flight expert app 336 may be executed according to a user intent execution context corresponding to the Vegas entity 308, the book flight action (e.g., 318 FIG. 3A), and/or the supplemental content 312 … the flight expert app 336 may utilize a destination city parameter, a departure city parameter, a departure date, and/or other parameters not illustrated in order to perform the book flight action 318. A value of Vegas, identified by the Vegas entity 308, may be assigned to the destination city parameter. A value of Ohio 350, identified by the supplemental content 312, may be assigned to the departure city parameter. The destination city parameter and the departure city parameter may be included within the user intent execution context. The user intent execution context may be passed to the flight expert app 336 for execution. In this way, the flight expert app 336 may be opened to a state that may be contextually relevant to the user (e.g., the flight expert app 336 may be opened to a flight reservation action form having Vegas and Ohio already populated within the flight reservation action form) …”).
Regarding claim 18, Kumar and Andersen disclose the limitations of claim 17. Kumar does not specifically disclose, however, Andersen discloses the non-transitory machine readable medium of claim 17, the operations comprising: responsive to receiving the request to perform the entity action, performing the transmitting the verification message (FIG. 1, items 120; C/L 6/1-19, “Authentication engine 120 can be executing, or running, on one or more servers and used to authenticate users and/or manage access to service provider 130. Authentication and access control may be based on information received through various user interfaces running on computing devices 110A--110N or other interactions, communications, and/or other inputs (e.g., e-mails, tokens, and/or communications via other channels). Authentication engine 120 can be calibrated/ configured by individual companies or service providers, based on risk tolerance and/or other business objectives, to authenticate users … in addition to rendering an authentication decision, authentication engine 120 may be configured to compute a risk profile or score. That profile may be used by itself to make a decision, or it may be used in conjunction with other profiles, scores, and/or business practices. Authentication engine 120 may also be configured to recommend an access level the user should be granted …”).
Andersen discloses payment transactions by email. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include payment transactions by email, as in Andersen, to improve and/or enhance the technology of task completion in email using third party app, as in Kumar, because it would amount to combining elements that in the combination would perform the same function as they functioned separately. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have been motivated to combine the references to provide an email mechanism that once the email message is verified, as well as the authenticity of the request to transfer money, the payment service initiates the process to transfer the payment amount, thus providing not only convenience in the transfer of the payment, but also security in the transfer for both consumer and the recipient.
Regarding claim 19, Kumar and Andersen disclose the limitations of claim 17. Kumar does not specifically disclose, however, Andersen discloses the non-transitory machine readable medium of claim 17, the operations comprising: responsive to receiving a request to open the first message, performing the transmitting the verification message (C/L 3/20-39, “… After sending the e-mail, the computing device can then make a separate secure connection to the authentication engine and supplies both the message token and the app token (e.g., by transmitting a token message containing the message token and the app token). The authentication engine can verify that the email was sent by the user (i.e., from the computing device) by taking the message and app tokens included in the token message supplied via the secure connection, recomputing the message token from the app token, and comparing the recomputed message token to the message token included in the email received independently through a different channel (e.g., from the native email application). If the recomputed message token and the message token match, verification is successful. Such verification provides proof that the computing device making the secure connection is the same one that generated the email (using native email application executing on the device). By completing this verification, the authentication engine verifies that the computing device is the only one capable of having produced the e-mail that included the message token …”).
Andersen discloses payment transactions by email. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include payment transactions by email, as in Andersen, to improve and/or enhance the technology of task completion in email using third party app, as in Kumar, because it would amount to combining elements that in the combination would perform the same function as they functioned separately. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have been motivated to combine the references to provide an email mechanism that once the email message is verified, as well as the authenticity of the request to transfer money, the payment service initiates the process to transfer the payment amount, thus providing not only convenience in the transfer of the payment, but also security in the transfer for both consumer and the recipient.
Regarding claim 20, Kumar and Andersen disclose the limitations of claim 17. Kumar does not specifically disclose, however, Andersen discloses the non-transitory machine readable medium of claim 17, the operations comprising: responsive to receiving a request to access the first user account from the first client device, performing the transmitting the verification message (C/L 3/36-45, “… By completing this verification, the authentication engine verifies that the computing device is the only one capable of having produced the e-mail that included the message token. Such verification constitutes a "login" to a service provider (e.g., a payment processing 40 service, an online video content provider, etc.) without providing a username or password. Hence, the user, on the front end, is relieved of the burden of having to complete manually the process of account creation and login every time the user desires to make a payment transfer …”).
Andersen discloses payment transactions by email. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include payment transactions by email, as in Andersen, to improve and/or enhance the technology of task completion in email using third party app, as in Kumar, because it would amount to combining elements that in the combination would perform the same function as they functioned separately. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have been motivated to combine the references to provide an email mechanism that once the email message is verified, as well as the authenticity of the request to transfer money, the payment service initiates the process to transfer the payment amount, thus providing not only convenience in the transfer of the payment, but also security in the transfer for both consumer and the recipient.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar et al (U. S. Patent Application Publication No. US 20160219003 A1), herein referred to as Kumar, in view of Andersen et al (U. S. Patent No. US 9165291 B1), herein referred to as Andersen, and in further view of Herlitz et al (U. S. Patent Application Publication No. US 20150261391 A1), herein referred to as Herlitz.
Regarding claim 11, Kumar and Andersen disclose the limitations of claim 1. Kumar and Andersen do not specifically disclose, however, Herlitz discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the verification response controls generation of the selectable input within the email interface such that the email interface is modified from a first state lacking the selectable input (FIG. 6A, item 530; para 44, “… In FIG. 6A the payment type interface element 530 is in a pre-active state …”) to a second state including the selectable input (FIG. 6B, items 544, 546, 548; para 46, “… The active state of the payment type element 530 comprises a plurality of active state layers. FIG. 6B displays the base layer or first layer 544. The display characteristics of the first layer 544 include a descriptor 546, which can provide descriptive information regarding the payment type input control 548. The payment type input control 548 comprises different options for payment, including a third party pay-ment option (e.g., PayPal®), credit card and other payment methods. The first layer also includes a cancel input 550 …”; FIG. 6C, items 552, 554; para 47, “… In FIG. 6C, after the credit card input is received by the application on the first layer 544, the active state transitions from the first layer to the credit card payment layer or second layer 552. The display characteristics of the second layer 544 include a plurality of credit card control inputs 554 configured to receive information associated with the user's credit card (e.g., card number, expiration date, cardholder name) … an active state can comprise one or more layers, with each layer providing different display characteristics and input controls. The application can transition between layers without transitioning from the current interface display screen …”).
Herlitz discloses an application workflow framework. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include an application workflow framework, as in Herlitz; and to include payment transactions by email, as in Andersen, to improve and/or enhance the technology of task completion in email using third party app, as in Kumar, because it would amount to combining elements that in the combination would perform the same function as they functioned separately. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have been motivated to combine the references utilizing an application workflow framework to manage the implementation of workflows in applications executing on computing devices with limited display areas, such as mobile phones, requiring the presentation of a sequence of pages that are required to implement the various workflow steps or stages where the application can transition between layers without transitioning from the current interface display screen; and thus eliminating the workflow interruption because the consumer was confused or distracted by the presentation of information on the various pages.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Cozens et al (U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 20140188727 A1) – Management Of Emailed Payment Recipients
Cozens discloses an email payment system and method to provide users with the ability to initiate and send payments to one or more recipients via email messaging. A user interface is provided in an email client that allows a user to insert payment with the email. Payment details are collected through one or more payment modals displayed in the email client. A payment object is inserted into the body of the email and is displayed to both the sender and recipient. The payment details captured in the payment object are communicated to a payment processor. The payment processor uses electronic payment accounts associated with the corresponding sender and recipient email addresses to identify the relevant electronic payment accounts and transfer the payment between said accounts. A status of the payment transaction is tracked and displayed within the payment object of the emails residing in both the sender and recipient email client.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN CHISM whose telephone number is (571) 272-5915. The examiner can normally be reached during 9:00 AM – 3:00 PM Monday – Thursday, EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ryan D. Donlon can be reached (571) 270-3602. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/STEVEN R CHISM/Examiner, Art Unit 3692
/RYAN D DONLON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3692 September 6, 2026
Prosecution Insights