DETAILED ACTION
1. The following Office Action is based on the application filed on 15 October 2024, having claims 1-20 and drawing figures 1-6.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Specification
3. The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The phrase “among other things,” recited in line 5 of the abstract must be deleted because it is unnecessary and redundant.
The term “and/or” recited in line 8 of the abstract must be deleted because it is unnecessary and redundant.
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Double Patenting
4. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,143,352 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following rationale:
Claim 1 is anticipated by the combination of claims 1 and 5 of the Patent.
Claim 2 is anticipated by claim 1 of the Patent.
Claim 3 is anticipated by claim 1 of the Patent.
Claim 4 is anticipated by claim 7 of the Patent.
Claim 5 is anticipated by claim 19 of the Patent.
Claim 6 is anticipated by claim 2 of the Patent.
Claim 7 is anticipated by claim 1 of the Patent.
Claim 8 is anticipated by claim 4 of the Patent.
Claims 9 is anticipated by the combination of claims 5 and 10 of the Patent.
Claim 10 is anticipated by claim 1 of the Patent.
Claim 11 is anticipated by the combination of claims 1 and 7 of the Patent.
Claim 12 is anticipated by claim 2 of the Patent.
Claim 13 is anticipated by claim 1 of the Patent.
Claim 14 is anticipated by claim 4 or claim 13 of the Patent.
Claim 15 is anticipated by the combination of claims 1 and 5 of the Patent.
Claim 16 is anticipated by claim 2 of the Patent.
Claim 17 is anticipated by claims 1 and 7 of the Patent.
Claim 18 is anticipated by claim 2 of the Patent.
Claim 19 is anticipated by claim 1 of the Patent.
Claim 20 is anticipated by claim 4 of the Patent.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3, 7, 9-10, 13, 15-16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sexauer et al. (US 2018/0123814 A1) in view of Jain et al. (US 2015/0006638 A1).
For claims 1, 9, and 15, Sexauer discloses receiving, in association with a user account of the communication platform ([0050] team collaboration platform of which the user is a member; the user can schedule a meeting, and the meeting information is stored in a thread associated with the user);
determining, based at least in part on data associated with the user account, that a user associated with the user account is unavailable or is scheduled to attend a meeting between a first time and a second time that are each subsequent to the current time ([0053] the scheduled meeting is for a time between a start time (first time) and an end time (second time));
For claims 1, 9, and 15, Sexauer does not expressly disclose a user-selectable control presented by a user interface, the user input representing a request to mute one or more notifications that are to occur subsequent to a current time.
Jain, from the same or similar field of endeavor, teaches a user selectable control presented by a user interface (Figs 7 and 8A, the screen of the user device displays a user-controllable interface), the user input representing a request to mute one or more notifications that are to occur subsequent to a current time and refraining from presenting, via a client device associated with the user and based at least in part on the user input, a notification between the first time and the second time ([0074] the user selects the “silent mode” to mute all notifications during the meeting which occurs between a first time and a second time). Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to implement the user interface of Jain in the communication platform of Sexauer at the time of the invention to enable the user to select when to mute the notifications.
For claims 2, 10, and 16, Sexauer discloses determining contextual data stored in association with the user account, the contextual data indicating user activity of the user via the communication platform and specifying meetings, including the meeting, in which the user is scheduled to attend ([0050] team collaboration platform of which the user is a member; the user can schedule a meeting, and the meeting information is stored in a thread associated with the user); and refraining from presenting the notification based at least in part on the contextual data ([0050] based on the user-set settings, messages and other notifications would be silent/muted).
For claim 3, Jain discloses determining activity associated with a virtual space of the communication platform in which the user is a member, wherein the notification is associated with the activity ([0067-0069] multiple users including the first user are members of a communication platform comprising at least one application server).
For claims 7, 13, and 19, Jain discloses the user input specifies at least one of an unavailability of the user or meetings, scheduled to occur at a future time, during which notifications are to be muted ([0050] when the user status is “in a meeting,” the user selects the phone settings to be silent/muted to prevent notifications).
6. Claims 4, 6, 8, 12, 14, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sexauer et al. (US 2018/0123814 A1) in view of Jain et al. (US 2015/0006638 A1) as applied to claims 1, 9, and 15 above, and further in view of Gilson (US 2020/0036451 A1).
For claim 4, Sexauer and Jain do not expressly disclose determining second activity relating to the meeting; and presenting, via the client device, a second notification associated with the second activity between the first time and the second time.
Gilson, from the same or similar field of endeavor, teaches determining second activity relating to the meeting ([0073] determines a calendar event (scheduled meeting) is occurring between a first time and second time); and presenting, via the client device, a second notification associated with the second activity between the first time and the second time ([0072] presenting the notification to the user when the event occurs).
For claims 6, 12, and 18, Gilson discloses presenting, at or after the second time and via the client device, the notification ([0079] the notifications would be presented after the time window (e.g., meeting ends) ends).
For claims 8, 14, and 20, Gilson discloses refraining from presenting the notification between the first time and the second time is performed without receiving additional input from the user ([0079] the mobile device of the user determined the silent period (no notifications period) without any input from the user).
Allowable Subject Matter
7. Claims 5, 11, and 17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
8. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 form.
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Elisabeth B Magloire whose telephone number is (571)272-5601. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 AM-5 PM 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, Sujoy K Kundu can be reached at 571-272-8586. 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.
/ELISABETH BENOIT MAGLOIRE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2471
Prosecution Insights