DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Claim status in the amendment received on 5/13/2026:
Claims 1, 5-6, 8, 12-13, 15 and 19-20 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Response to Amendments
Applicant’s amendments have been considered and in response to the amendments:
The previous 101 rejections have been withdrawn.
The previous 112(b) rejections have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that the prior art does not teach or suggest the limitation “generating a summary of the catch-upon content by shortening the catch-up content”, as recited in claim 1 and similarly in claims 8 and 15. However, the examiner respectfully traverses.
Hoots teaches generating a shortened summary of the content in (paragraph [0065], “… the electronic communication summarization program 160 may use NLP (such as topic modeling) and/or machine learning to determine that “release code 22.0.0.1” is a common topic in the message thread…”).
Therefore, the prior art rejections are maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
As to claim 1, the following limitations lack a proper antecedent basis:
“the missing online content collected”, in lines 9-10.
“the catch-upon content”, in line 13.
As to claims 8 and 15, the claims are also rejected under 112(b) for the same reason of claim 1.
As to the claim(s) that are dependent on claim(s) 1, 8 or 15, the dependent claim(s) are also rejected under 112(b) for the same reason of their base claim(s).
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-10, 12-17 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoots et al. (Pub. No.: US 20240160850 A1).
As to claim 1, Hoots teaches determining interests of a user exhibited when the user interacts with online content via online activities (paragraph [0064], “…such as detecting the user submitting a response or providing an emoji, as an indication that the user has an interest in the topic presented in the message thread…”); and
for the user, detecting an absent period of the user (paragraph [0012], “…a time period that a user status remains inactive…”), determining current interests of the user before the absent period (paragraph [0012], “…new communication relates to the topic of interest…”); extracting, continually during the absent period from different sources, missing online content of the user related to the current interests of the user (paragraph [0012], “…during a time period that a user status remains inactive; in response to determining the received new communication relates to the topic of interest, automatically extract content from the new communication and associate the extracted content with the topic of interest…” and paragraph [0041]),
generating catch-up content for the user based on the missing online content collected (paragraph [0012], “…the communication summary comprises the extracted content from the received new communication…”,), updating, whenever updated missing online content is available during the absent period, the catch-up content based on the updated missing online content (paragraph [0012], “wherein the new communication comprises a communication received, for example, during a time period that a user status remains inactive”),
generating a summary of the catch-upon content by shortening the catch-up content (paragraph [0065], “… the electronic communication summarization program 160 may use NLP (such as topic modeling) and/or machine learning to determine that “release code 22.0.0.1” is a common topic in the message thread…”), and
presenting the updated catch-up content to the user when the absent period ends to assist the user to pick up where the user left off prior to the user’s absence (paragraph [0012], “in response to detecting that the user status switches from inactive to active, generate and display the communication summary, wherein the communication summary comprises the extracted content from the received new communication, and wherein displaying the communication summary further includes labeling and presenting the new communication according to the topic of interest”).
Hoots does not explicitly teach a plurality of users.
However, based on the teaching of Hoots, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate a service for providing catch-up contents for a plurality of users (the same way the service is provided for a single user as taught by Hoots) in order to allow different users to benefit from the service and improve service utilization.
As to claim 2, Hoots teaches wherein the current interests of the user capture at least one of:
one or more topics detected from either the online content the user consumed prior to the absent period or at least one of trending content and breaking news content (paragraph [0041], “…track user interactions with such data and the electronic communication program/system, to identify and generate topics of interest to the user…”);
one or more stories that the user followed prior to the absent period; and
one or more events that the user monitored prior to the absent period.
As to claim 3, Hoots teaches wherein the absent period is detected based on the activities of the user or lack thereof (paragraph [0072], “…the user status may indicate whether a user is active or inactive with respect to the electronic communication…”).
As to claim 5, Hoots teaches wherein the missing online content collected during the absent period includes online content from different sources
in the one or more topics (paragraph [0003], “…new and different communications received on an electronic communication system relates to one or more stored topics of interest to the user…”);
about the one or more stories (paragraph [0076]); and on the one or more events, wherein each of the one or more stories includes a sequence of events occurred at different times during the absent period (paragraph [0076]).
As to claim 6, Hoots teaches wherein the step of generating the catch-up content for the user based on the missing online content comprises:
identifying, from the missing online content, topic-related content with respect to each of the one or more topics to create corresponding one or more groups of topic-related content (paragraph [0003]);
identifying, from the missing online content, story-related content with respect to each of the one or more stories to create corresponding one or more groups of story-related content (paragraph [0076]); and
identifying, from the missing online content, event-related content with respect to each of the one or more events to create corresponding one or more groups of event-related content, wherein each of the one or more stories involves at least one associated event occurred at different times in a sequence during the absent period (paragraph [0076]).
As to claim 7, Hoots teaches generating, with respect to the one or more topics, topic-based catch-up content based on the one or more groups of topic-based content (paragraph [0003]);
generating, with respect to the one or more stories, story-based catch-up content based on the one or more groups of story-based content (paragraph [0076]);
generating, with respect to the one or more events, event-based catch-up content based on the one or more groups of event-based content (paragraph [0076]);
generating personalized catch-up content for the user based on the topic-based catch-up content, the story-based catch-up, and the event-based catch-up content (paragraph [0078]); and
providing the personalized catch-up content to the user when the absent period ends (paragraph [0078]).
As to claim 8, Hoots further teaches a machine-readable and non-transitory medium having information recorded thereon, wherein the information, when read by the machine, causes the machine to perform steps (paragraph [0085]). Therefore, the limitations of claim 8 are substantially similar to claim 1. Please refer to claim 1 above.
As to claims 9-10 and 12-14, the limitations of the claims are substantially similar to claims 2-3, 5-7, respectively. Please refer to each respective claim above.
As to claim 15, Hoots further teaches a system, comprising: a user content generator implemented by a processor (paragraph [0085]). Therefore, the limitations of claim 15 are substantially similar to claim 1. Please refer to claim 1 above.
As to claims 16-17 and 19-20, the limitations of the claims are substantially similar to claims 2-3, 5-6, respectively. Please refer to each respective claim above.
Claim(s) 4, 11 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoots et al. (Pub. No.: US 20240160850 A1) in view of Haynes et al. (Pub. No.: US 20100241483 A1).
As to claim 4, Hoots does not explicitly teach start date and end date of absent period.
However, in the same field of endeavor (managing user events) Haynes teaches absent period is detected based on a configuration that specifies a start date and an end date of the absent period (paragraph [0009], “a user absence period comprises determining a user absence period having a start date and an end date, the user absence period defined on a user calendar”).
Based on Haynes in view of Hoots, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate start date and end date of absent period (taught by Haynes) with a service for providing catch-up contents for a plurality of users (the same way the service is provided for a single user as taught by Hoots) with detecting user absence (taught by Hoots) in order to allow different users to benefit from the service and improve service utilization and in order to allow the users to explicitly indicated their absence period.
As to claims 11 and 18, the limitations of the claim are substantially similar to claim 4. Please refer to claim 4 above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABDULKADER M ALRIYASHI whose telephone number is (313)446-6551. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8AM - 5PM Alt, Friday, 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, JOON HWANG can be reached at (571)272-4036. 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.
/Abdulkader M Alriyashi/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2447 6/29/2026
Prosecution Insights