DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the Application Ser. No. 18/901,780 filed on September 30, 2024. Claims 1-20 are pending and are examined.
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 .
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.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for domestic priority as a continuing application under 35 U.S.C. 120 based on Non-Provisional Application Ser. 18/132,752 filed on April 10, 2023, which claims the benefit of Non-Provisional Application Ser. No. 17/306,430 filed on May 3, 2021, which claims the benefit of Non-Provisional Application Ser. No. 16/288,560 filed on February 28, 2019, which claims the benefit of Non-Provisional Application Ser. No. 14/696,264 filed April 24, 2015, which claims the benefit of Provisional Application Ser No. 61/983,828 filed April 24, 2014.
Drawings
The drawings were received on September 30, 2024. These drawings are accepted.
Claim Objections
The claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
regarding Claim 1, the term “a first one of the plurality of users (emphasis added)” recited in lines 4-5 should be “a first user of the plurality of users (emphasis added);
regarding Claim 6, the term “one or more instances of interaction” recited in line 2 should be “one or more instances of electronic interaction (emphasis added)”;
regarding Claim 9, the term “a first user’s computer system” recited in lines 2-3 should be “a computer system of a first user”;
regarding Claim 14, the term “one or more instances of interaction” recited in line 2 should be “one or more instances of electronic interaction (emphasis added)”;
regarding Claim 17, the term “the first user’s computer system” recited in lines 4-5 should be “the computer system of the first user” and the phrase “one or more instances of electronic interaction that are stored in the database between the first user and the at least one identified user” recited in lines 9-11 should be “one or more instances of electronic interaction between the first user and the at least one identified user that are stored in the database”; and
regarding Claim 19, the term “the first user’s activity” recited in line 2 should be “activity of the first user”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitations “collect information from a website displayed in a web browser on the user computer system" in lines 6-7 and “display on the user computer system one or more instances of electronic interaction between the first user and the second user that are stored in the database” in lines 10-11, respectively. The relationship between “the user computer system” recited in lines 6-7 and “a computer system of a first one of the plurality of users” recited in lines 4-5 is unclear, rendering the claim indefinite. Specifically, it is unclear whether a distinction should be drawn between “the user computer system” and “a computer system of a first one of the plurality of users” or whether the terms are used interchangeably to refer to the same element.
Dependent Claims 2-8 are rejected for the reasons presented above with respect to rejected Claim 1 in view of their dependence thereon.
The Examiner suggests amending the claim to replace the term “a computer system of a first one of the plurality of users (emphasis added)” with “a computer system of a first user of the plurality of users” and the term “the user computer system” with “the computer system of the first user”, respectively, to overcome the rejection.
Additionally, Claim 6 recites the limitation “wherein the application is configured to display on the user's computer system one or more instances of interaction between the first user and each of the identified users” in lines 1-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the term “the user’s computer system” in the claims.
The Examiner suggests amending the claim to replace the term “the user’s computer system” with “the computer system of the first user” to overcome the rejection.
Additionally, Claim 7 recites the limitation “wherein the application is further configured to determine a larger entity with which the second user is associated and to display on the user computer system one or more instances of electronic interaction between the first user and the larger entity other than the one or more instances of electronic interaction between the first user and the second user” in lines 1-5. As previously stated in the rejection of Claim 1, the relationship between “the user computer system” and “a computer system of a first one of the plurality of users” recited in Claim 1 is unclear, rendering the claim indefinite.
The Examiner suggests amending the claim to replace the term “the user computer system” with “the computer system of the first user” to overcome the rejection.
Additionally, Claim 8 recites the limitation “wherein the application is further configured to determine a larger entity with which the first user is associated and to display on the user computer system one or more instances of electronic interaction between the second user and the larger entity other than the one or more instances of electronic interaction between the first user and the second user” in lines 1-5. As previously stated in the rejection of Claim 1, the relationship between “the user computer system” and “a computer system of a first one of the plurality of users” recited in Claim 1 is unclear, rendering the claim indefinite.
The Examiner suggests amending the claim to replace the term “the user computer system” with “the computer system of the first user” to overcome the rejection.
Claim 9 recites the limitations “determining if the collected information includes identification of a second user having one or more electronic interactions with the first user” in lines 4-5, “retrieving the one or more interactions from a database that stores a plurality of electronic interactions between the first user and a plurality of other users, the second user being one of the plurality of other users” in lines 6-8 and “displaying the one or more interactions over the website interface” in line 9, respectively. The relationship between “the one or more interactions” recited in line 6 and “one or more electronic interactions” recited in line 5 is unclear, rendering the claim indefinite. Specifically, it is unclear whether a distinction should be drawn between “the one or more interactions” and “one or more electronic interactions” or whether the terms are used interchangeably to refer to the same element.
Dependent Claims 10-16 are rejected for the reasons presented above with respect to rejected Claim 9 in view of their dependence thereon.
The Examiner suggests amending the claim to delete the phrase “having one or more electronic interactions with the first user” recited in line 5 and to replace the term “the one or more interactions (emphasis added)” recited in line 6 with “one or more electronic interactions between the first user and the second user (emphasis added)” to overcome the rejection.
Additionally, Claim 12 recites the limitations “wherein displaying the one or more interactions over the website interface is performed by an extension of the web browser” in lines 1-2. As previously stated in the rejection of Claim 9, the relationship between “the one or more interactions” and “one or more electronic interactions” recited in Claim 9 is unclear, rendering the claim indefinite.
The Examiner suggests amending the claim to replace the term “the one or more interactions” with “the one or more electronic interactions between the first user and the second user (emphasis added)” to overcome the rejection.
Additionally, Claim 14 recites the limitation “further comprising displaying on the user's computer system one or more instances of interaction between the first user and each of the identified users” in lines 1-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the term “the user’s computer system” in the claims.
The Examiner suggests amending the claim to replace the term “the user’s computer system” with “the computer system of the first user” to overcome the rejection.
Additionally, Claim 15 recites the limitation “further comprising determining a larger entity with which the second user is associated, and retrieving and displaying on the user computer system one or more instances of electronic interaction between the first user and the larger entity other than the one or more instances of electronic interaction between the first user and the second user” in lines 1-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the term “the user computer system” in the claims. Additionally, the relationship between the term “the one or more instances of electronic interaction between the first user and the second user” recited in lines 3-4 and “one or more electronic interactions” recited in line 5 of Claim 9 is unclear, rendering the claim indefinite. Specifically, it is unclear whether a distinction should be drawn between “one or more instances of electronic interaction” and “one or more electronic interactions” or whether the terms are used interchangeably to refer to the same element.
The Examiner suggests amending the claim to replace the term “the user’s computer system” with “the computer system of the first user” and amending all of Claims 9-16 to utilize either “one or more electronic interactions between the first user and the second user” or “one or more instances of electronic interaction between the first user and the second user” consistently.
Additionally, Claim 16 recites the limitation “further comprising determining a larger entity with which the first user is associated, and retrieving and displaying on the user computer system one or more instances of electronic interaction between the second user and the larger entity other than the one or more instances of electronic interaction between the first user and the second user” in lines 1-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the term “the user computer system” in the claims. Additionally, the relationship between the term “the one or more instances of electronic interaction between the first user and the second user” recited in lines 3-4 and “one or more electronic interactions” recited in line 5 of Claim 9 is unclear, rendering the claim indefinite. Specifically, it is unclear whether a distinction should be drawn between “one or more instances of electronic interaction” and “one or more electronic interactions” or whether the terms are used interchangeably to refer to the same element.
The Examiner suggests amending the claim to replace the term “the user’s computer system” with “the computer system of the first user” and amending all of Claims 9-16 to utilize either “one or more electronic interactions between the first user and the second user” or “one or more instances of electronic interaction between the first user and the second user” consistently.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “display on the user computer system one or more instances of electronic interaction that are stored in the database between the first user and the at least one identified user” in lines 9-11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the term “the user computer system” in the claims.
Dependent Claims 18-20 are rejected for the reasons presented above with respect to rejected Claim 17 in view of their dependence thereon.
The Examiner suggests amending the claim to replace the term “the user computer system” with “the computer system of the first user” to overcome the rejection.
Additionally, Claim 19 recites the limitation “wherein the application is further configured to add information to the database based on the first user's activity in the web browser on one of the two or more social media networks” in lines 1-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the term “the first user’s activity” in the claims.
For examination purposes, the term “the first user’s activity” is interpreted as “activity of the first user”.
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 1-8 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Regarding Claim 1, “A system” comprising “a database configured to store instances of electronic interaction among a plurality of users” and “an application configured to be installed on a computer system of a first one of the plurality of users” is recited. While the application is “configured to be installed on a computer system”, the computer system is not positively recited as an element of the system. In view of the specification, a person of ordinary skill in the art would interpret “a database” and “an application” as a logical data structure and as software, respectively, and therefore the broadest, reasonable interpretation of “a system” includes software, per se. A claim that covers both statutory and non-statutory embodiments (under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim when read in light of the specification and in view of one skilled in the art) embraces subject matter that is not eligible for patent protection and therefore is directed to non-statutory subject matter, and such claims should be rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101. See MPEP 2106.
Dependent Claims 2-8 fail to recite sufficient structure so as to cure the deficiencies of Claim 1 from which they depend and therefore are similarly rejected as being drawn to non-statutory subject matter.
Regarding Claim 17, “A system” comprising “a database configured to store instances of electronic interaction between a first user and a plurality of other users of two or more social media networks” and “an application configured to be installed on or receive data from a computer system of the first user” is recited. While the application is “configured to be installed on or receive data from a computer system”, the computer system is not positively recited as an element of the system. In view of the specification, a person of ordinary skill in the art would interpret “a database” and “an application” as a logical data structure and as software, respectively, and therefore the broadest, reasonable interpretation of “a system” includes software, per se. A claim that covers both statutory and non-statutory embodiments (under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim when read in light of the specification and in view of one skilled in the art) embraces subject matter that is not eligible for patent protection and therefore is directed to non-statutory subject matter, and such claims should be rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101. See MPEP 2106.
Dependent Claims 18-20 fail to recite sufficient structure so as to cure the deficiencies of Claim 17 from which they depend and therefore are similarly rejected as being drawn to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-6, 9-14, 17, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by the paper authored by Hangal et al., titled “Effective Browsing and Serendipitous Discovery with an Experience-Infused Browser”, hereby “Hangal”.
Regarding Claim 1, Hangal discloses “A system (Hangal fig. 1, Abstract and § "Infusing a Browser with the User's Experience" and “SYSTEM DESIGN”: a system for recalling digital experiences while browsing) comprising:
a database configured to store instances of electronic interaction among a plurality of users (Hangal fig. 1 and § "Personal Digital Archives" and "Privacy Preserving Personalization" and "SYSTEM DESIGN": a personal archive that includes email archive and chat logs); and
an application configured to be installed on a computer system of a first one of the plurality of users (Hangal fig. 1 and § "Infusing a Browser with the User's Experience" and "Privacy Preserving Personalization" and "SYSTEM DESIGN": web browser with Experience-Infused browser extension), the application configured to:
collect information from a website displayed in a web browser on the user computer system (Hangal fig. 1, Abstract and § "SYSTEM DESIGN": "After the web page is completely loaded by the browser, the user script extracts page contents and posts it to MUSE that is running on the same machine in the background.");
determine if the information includes a second one of the plurality of users (Hangal fig. 1, Abstract and § "USER EXPERIENCE", "SYSTEM DESIGN" and "Named Entities": "We extract named entities from the page text using the Stanford NLP toolkit [26]. The named entity recognizer can identify names from a piece of text, and also classify them as likely to belong to a person, place or organization." - the identified names are then compared against the indexed contents of the personal archive); and
display on the user computer system one or more instances of electronic interaction between the first user and the second user that are stored in the database (Hangal figs. 1 and 3 and § "Infusing a Browser with the User's Experience", "USER EXPERIENCE", "SYSTEM DESIGN" and "People names": "The browser also lets users find out why it highlighted the terms shown. By simply clicking any highlight terms or a term in the call-out, the user can see a preview of the email messages that contain the terms of interest." - the displayed emails include emails exchanged between the user and the identified person).”
Regarding Claim 2, Hangal discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1.
Additionally, Hangal discloses “wherein the instances of electronic interaction comprise instances of interaction over one or more social media networks (Hangal fig. 1 and § "Personal Digital Archives" and "LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE WORK": “While email and chat logs are conveniently accessible and capture a rich fraction of personal history for many users, a more comprehensive archive would incorporate more social streams such as those from Facebook and Twitter.” - authors suggest that the personal archive could include interactions from one or more social media networks).”
Regarding Claim 3, Hangal discloses all of the limitations of Claim 2.
Additionally, Hangal discloses “wherein the instances of electronic interaction further comprise one or more emails (Hangal fig. 1 and § "Personal Digital Archives" and "Privacy Preserving Personalization" and "SYSTEM DESIGN": the personal archive includes emails).”
Regarding Claim 4, Hangal discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1.
Additionally, Hangal discloses “wherein the application is an extension of the web browser (Hangal fig. 1 and § "Infusing a Browser with the User's Experience" and "Privacy Preserving Personalization" and "SYSTEM DESIGN": web browser with Experience-Infused browser extension).”
Regarding Claim 5, Hangal discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1.
Additionally, Hangal discloses “wherein the application is configured to identify each user of the plurality of users included in the information (Hangal fig. 1 and § "Infusing a Browser with the User's Experience", "USER EXPERIENCE" and "SYSTEM DESIGN": “Our browser brings the user’s attention to terms that are likely to be meaningful to him. Examples of such terms are proper nouns and names of friends or places that appear in the user’s email archive. Figure 2 shows a screenshot of the browser on the New York Times home page for one of the participants in our study. Here the terms Mumbai and USC are highlighted; it turned out that this user comes from the city of Mumbai and had applied to USC for admission.” - multiple person names may be extracted from the web page).”
Regarding Claim 6, Hangal discloses all of the limitations of Claim 5.
Additionally, Hangal discloses “wherein the application is configured to display on the user's computer system one or more instances of interaction between the first user and each of the identified users (Hangal figs. 1 and 3 and § "Infusing a Browser with the User's Experience", "USER EXPERIENCE", "SYSTEM DESIGN" and "People names": "The browser also lets users find out why it highlighted the terms shown. By simply clicking any highlight terms or a term in the call-out, the user can see a preview of the email messages that contain the terms of interest." - the displayed emails can include emails exchanged between the user and each of persons identified from the web page).”
Regarding Claim 9, Hangal discloses “A method (Hangal fig. 1, Abstract and § "Infusing a Browser with the User's Experience" and “SYSTEM DESIGN”: a process for recalling digital experiences while browsing) comprising:
collecting information from a website interface displayed in a web browser of a first user's computer system (Hangal fig. 1, Abstract and § "SYSTEM DESIGN": "After the web page is completely loaded by the browser, the user script extracts page contents and posts it to MUSE that is running on the same machine in the background.");
determining if the collected information includes identification of a second user having one or more electronic interactions with the first user (Hangal fig. 1, Abstract and § "USER EXPERIENCE", "SYSTEM DESIGN" and "Named Entities": "We extract named entities from the page text using the Stanford NLP toolkit [26]. The named entity recognizer can identify names from a piece of text, and also classify them as likely to belong to a person, place or organization." the identified names are then compared against the indexed contents of the personal archive);
retrieving the one or more interactions from a database that stores a plurality of electronic interactions between the first user and a plurality of other users, the second user being one of the plurality of other users (Hangal fig. 1 and § "Personal Digital Archives" and "Privacy Preserving Personalization" and "SYSTEM DESIGN": while not explicitly stated, interactions containing terms of interest, e.g., emails comprising the name of a person, are necessarily retrieved from the personal archive); and
displaying the one or more interactions over the website interface (Hangal figs. 1 and 3 and § "Infusing a Browser with the User's Experience", "USER EXPERIENCE", "SYSTEM DESIGN" and "People names": "The browser also lets users find out why it highlighted the terms shown. By simply clicking any highlight terms or a term in the call-out, the user can see a preview of the email messages that contain the terms of interest." - the displayed emails include emails exchanged between the user and the identified person).
Insofar as it recites similar claim elements, Claim 10 is rejected for substantially the same reasons presented above with respect to Claim 2.
Insofar as it recites similar claim elements, Claim 11 is rejected for substantially the same reasons presented above with respect to Claim 3.
Insofar as it recites similar claim elements, Claim 12 is rejected for substantially the same reasons presented above with respect to Claim 4.
Insofar as it recites similar claim elements, Claim 13 is rejected for substantially the same reasons presented above with respect to Claim 5.
Insofar as it recites similar claim elements, Claim 14 is rejected for substantially the same reasons presented above with respect to Claim 6.
Regarding Claim 17, Hangal discloses “A system (Hangal fig. 1, Abstract and § "Infusing a Browser with the User's Experience" and “SYSTEM DESIGN”: a system for recalling digital experiences while browsing) comprising:
a database configured to store instances of electronic interaction among a plurality of users (Hangal fig. 1 and § "Personal Digital Archives", "Privacy Preserving Personalization", "SYSTEM DESIGN" and “LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE WORK”: a personal archive that includes email archive and chat logs and may also include interactions over one or more social networks); and
an application configured to be installed on or receive data from a computer system of the first user (Hangal fig. 1 and § "Infusing a Browser with the User's Experience" and "Privacy Preserving Personalization" and "SYSTEM DESIGN": web browser with Experience-Infused browser extension), the application configured to:
collect information from a website displayed in a web browser on the first user's computer system (Hangal fig. 1, Abstract and § "SYSTEM DESIGN": "After the web page is completely loaded by the browser, the user script extracts page contents and posts it to MUSE that is running on the same machine in the background.");
identify at least one of the plurality of other users in the information (Hangal fig. 1, Abstract and § "USER EXPERIENCE", "SYSTEM DESIGN" and "Named Entities": "We extract named entities from the page text using the Stanford NLP toolkit [26]. The named entity recognizer can identify names from a piece of text, and also classify them as likely to belong to a person, place or organization." the identified names are then compared against the indexed contents of the personal archive); and
display on the user computer system one or more instances of electronic interaction that are stored in the database between the first user and the at least one identified user (Hangal figs. 1 and 3 and § "Infusing a Browser with the User's Experience", "USER EXPERIENCE", "SYSTEM DESIGN" and "People names": "The browser also lets users find out why it highlighted the terms shown. By simply clicking any highlight terms or a term in the call-out, the user can see a preview of the email messages that contain the terms of interest." - the displayed emails include emails exchanged between the user and the identified person).”
Regarding Claim 18, Hangal discloses all of the limitations of Claim 17.
Additionally, Hangal discloses “wherein the instances of electronic interaction stored in the database comprise messages exchanged on the two or more social media networks and emails (Hangal fig. 1 and § "Personal Digital Archives" and "LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE WORK": “While email and chat logs are conveniently accessible and capture a rich fraction of personal history for many users, a more comprehensive archive would incorporate more social streams such as those from Facebook and Twitter.” - authors suggest that the personal archive could include interactions from one or more social media networks as well as emails).”
Regarding Claim 20, Hangal discloses all of the limitations of Claim 17.
Additionally, Hangal discloses “wherein the application is configured to display the one or more instances of electronic interaction by overlaying the one or more instances of electronic interaction on the web browser (Hangal figs. 1 and 3 and § "Infusing a Browser with the User's Experience", "USER EXPERIENCE", "SYSTEM DESIGN" and "People names": "The browser also lets users find out why it highlighted the terms shown. By simply clicking any highlight terms or a term in the call-out, the user can see a preview of the email messages that contain the terms of interest." - as shown in Figure 3, snippets of the emails are displayed in an overlay over the web page by the browser).”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 7, 8, 15, 16 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hangal in view of McConnell et al., Pub. No. US 2013/0218991 A1, hereby “McConnell”.
Regarding Claim 7, Hangal discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1.
However, while Hangal suggests that the personal archive may capture relationships between the user and organizations associated with the user (Hangal § “Personal Digital Archives”, “USER EXPERIENCE” and “DISCUSSION”), Hangal does not explicitly disclose “wherein the application is further configured to determine a larger entity with which the second user is associated and to display on the user computer system one or more instances of electronic interaction between the first user and the larger entity other than the one or more instances of electronic interaction between the first user and the second user.”
In a related field of endeavor, McConnell discloses “wherein the application is further configured to determine a larger entity with which the second user is associated and to display on the user computer system one or more instances of electronic interaction between the first user and the larger entity other than the one or more instances of electronic interaction between the first user and the second user (McConnell figs. 1D and 5F and paragraphs 163-172: an entity, such as a target account, associated with a second user is determined and user 203 is presented with comprehensive profile 352, which can include interactions with a target account, which may represent a company that has a relationship with user 203 or the enterprise associated with user 203).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the system of Hangal, to present to the user, in response to detecting a reference to a person with whom the user has a relationship in the original content, a plurality of messages between the user an entity with which the person is associated as taught by McConnell. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine presenting to the user, in response to detecting a reference to a person with whom the user has a relationship in the original content, a plurality of messages between the user an entity with which the person is associated to inform the user of correspondence between the user and the entity with which the person is associated even though the user may not have corresponded directly with the person (McConnell paragraphs 171-172).
Regarding Claim 8, Hangal discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1.
However, while Hangal suggests that the personal archive may capture relationships between the user and organizations associated with the user (Hangal § “Personal Digital Archives”, “USER EXPERIENCE” and “DISCUSSION”), Hangal does not explicitly disclose “wherein the application is further configured to determine a larger entity with which the first user is associated and to display on the user computer system one or more instances of electronic interaction between the second user and the larger entity other than the one or more instances of electronic interaction between the first user and the second user.”
In a related field of endeavor, McConnell discloses “wherein the application is further configured to determine a larger entity with which the first user is associated and to display on the user computer system one or more instances of electronic interaction between the second user and the larger entity other than the one or more instances of electronic interaction between the first user and the second user (McConnell figs. 1C, 2, 5D and 5E and paragraphs 120 and 134-144 and 155-160: an enterprise, e.g., a larger entity, associated with user 203 is determined and user 203 is presented with information based on at least user-specific information 471 and enterprise-specific information 481, the presented information including a comprehensive profile 352 which can include interactions involving a target person, including social media objects 206 posted by the target person that are relevant to the enterprise).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the system of Hangal to display to the user, in response to detecting a reference to a person with whom the user has a relationship in the original content, a listing of communications by the person that pertain to an entity with which the user is associated, such as the company employing the user, as taught by McConnell. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine displaying to the user, in response to detecting a reference to a person with whom the user has a relationship in the original content, a listing of communications by the person that pertain to an entity with which the user is associated, such as the company employing the user, to inform the user of correspondence between the entity that the user is associated with and the person even though the user may not have corresponded directly with the person (McConnell paragraphs 171-172).
Insofar as it recites similar claim elements, Claim 15 is rejected for substantially the same reasons presented above with respect to Claim 7.
Insofar as it recites similar claim elements, Claim 16 is rejected for substantially the same reasons presented above with respect to Claim 8.
Regarding Claim 19, Hangal discloses all of the limitations of Claim 17.
However, while Hangal suggests that the index created from the contents of the personal archive can be updated on an ongoing basis (Hangal § “Personal Digital Archives”), Hangal does not explicitly disclose “wherein the application is further configured to add information to the database based on the first user's activity in the web browser on one of the two or more social media networks.”
In the same field of endeavor, McConnell discloses “wherein the application is further configured to add information to the database based on activity of the first user in the web browser on one of the two or more social media networks (McConnell figs. 2 and 3A and paragraphs 33-34: a new correspondence record 326 is created and stored in data store 326 when the user posts on a social networking service 205 or sends an email).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the system of Hangal to add new social media correspondence to the personal archive as taught by McConnell because doing so constitutes applying a known technique (adding new correspondence records to a data store when new social media posts or emails are sent) to known devices and/or methods (a system for recalling digital experiences while browsing) ready for improvement to yield predictable and desirable results (ensuring new correspondence is indexed and available for display to the user). See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (U.S. 2007).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Golbeck et al., the paper titled “SocialBrowsing: Integrating Social Networks and Web Browsing”, discloses a browser extension that analyzes the content of a webpage and highlights words or phrases within the content that are determined to have relevant social information that is displayed when the user hovers over a highlighted term;
Kiciman et al., Pub. No. US 2011/0113349 A1, discloses a method, which may be implemented using a browser plug-in, for providing an individual that is viewing a webpage with social networking messages that are in some way related to content of the webpage;
Hacid et al., Pub. No. US 2012/0179972 A1, discloses a method for browsing enrichment wherein a browser extension extracts relevant terms from a page being displayed by a browser and identifies and displays enriching information retrieved based on the extracted terms; and
Boyd et al., Pub. No. US 2012/0330932 A1, discloses a method for presenting one or more pieces of supplemental content, e.g., social media data, that are matched to entities, e.g., keywords, identified within the primary content being displayed, e.g., a webpage.
A shortened statutory period for reply to this action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. An extension of time may be obtained under 37 CFR 1.136(a). However, in no event, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM C MCBETH whose telephone number is (571)270-0495. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 8:00AM - 4:30PM ET.
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, Vivek Srivastava can be reached on 571-272-7304. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/WILLIAM C MCBETH/Examiner, Art Unit 2449