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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed on July 15, 2026 has been entered.
Claims 2-21 are pending.
Claim 1 was previously canceled.
Claims 2-3, 5, 8-9, 12-13, 15, and 18-19 have been amended.
Claims 2-21 are rejected.
Priority
This application attempts to claim priority to subject matter disclosed in the prior Application No. 18/121,985, filed March 15, 2023, currently U.S. Patent No. 12,197,969, which is a continuation of Application No. 17/ 383,062, filed July 22, 2022, currently U.S. Patent No. 11,630,710. Both prior applications name the two inventors named in the instant application, Applicant claims that this application constitutes a continuation, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 120, 37 CFR 1.78, and MPEP § 211 et seq.
However, there is some discrepancy in the instant claims, which recite “generating an aggregated notification, wherein the aggregated notification comprises a summary of the plurality of notifications and the temporal information corresponding to the first calendar event.” Both previous applications disclose “an aggregated calendar” but do not disclose “an aggregated notification.” The discrepancy must be resolved before priority can be granted.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 15, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 112, Applicant argues as follows:
Claims 2-21 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112. Specifically, the Office Action asserts that the specification does not have support for "generating an aggregated notification, wherein the aggregated notification comprises a summary of the plurality of notifications and temporal information corresponding to the first calendar event."
This rejection is respectfully traversed. Paragraph [0076] of the application's specification discloses generating a consolidated notification "comprising the temporal information of the first notification and set of notifications is generated for display." For example, "the consolidation of the notifications into a single notification may be in the form of generating for display a second notification comprising the temporal information associated with the first notification and set of one or more notifications" such as "You have received 12 messages from your group chat in the last five minutes." Applicant therefore believes that paragraph [0076], inter alia, provides support for "generating an aggregated notification, wherein the aggregated notification comprises a summary of the plurality of notifications and temporal information corresponding to the first calendar event."
The argument is persuasive, and the rejection has been withdrawn.
Regarding the Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and 103, Applicant argues as follows:
This rejection is respectfully traversed. Paragraph [0076] of the application's specification discloses generating a consolidated notification "comprising the temporal information of the first notification and set of notifications is generated for display." For example, "the consolidation of the notifications into a single notification may be in the form of generating for display a second notification comprising the temporal information associated with comprises a summary of the plurality of notifications and relative temporal information corresponding to the first calendar event." Applicant respectfully submits that Monte fails to describe or suggest the claims as amended. The Office Action cites paragraph [0218] and corresponding FIG. 25 of Monte to allege that the reference describes an "generating an aggregated notification" as recited in the claims. [0218] discloses a notification banner that can depict the status of alerts/notifications such as indicating the number of total alerts, new alerts, unread alerts, and read alerts. However, the banner of Monte does not comprise temporal information, let alone "relative temporal information." Rather, the banner merely describes whether an alert exists, the newness of the alert, and whether a user has read the alert, none of which is relative temporal information. Monte therefore fails to teach or suggest the claims as amended. For at least these reasons, Applicant respectfully submits that each of amended independent claims 2 and 12 is patentable. Applicant further respectfully submits that dependent claims 3-11 and 13-21, as amended, are patentable by virtue of their respective direct and ultimate dependencies from allowable independent claims 2 and 12, as well as by virtue of the patentably distinct subject matter that they recite.
Claims 9 and 19 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Monte in view of U.S. Publication No. 2015/0207916 to Xue et al. ("Xue"). As demonstrated above, Monte fails to teach or suggest the amended claims. Xue fails to cure the deficiencies of Monte. Applicant therefore respectfully requests reconsideration and withdrawal of the rejection. For at least these reasons, Applicant respectfully submits that each of amended independent claims 2 and 12 is patentable. Applicant further respectfully submits that dependent claims 3-11 and 13-21, as amended, are patentable by virtue of their respective direct and ultimate dependencies from allowable independent claims 2 and 12, as well as by virtue of the patentably distinct subject matter that they recite.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with the argument that the banner of Monte does not comprise temporal information, let alone "relative temporal information." As pointed out in the note following the discussion of the limitations, the Monte disclosure of “events, appointments and other triggers related to integrated calendar and timeline” is equivalent to “L38 and .” Applicant also argues that the banner merely describes whether an alert exists, the newness of the alert, and whether a user has read the alert, none of which is relative temporal information. However, the alert and notification banner is dynamically updated and presented in a UI to provide a current status indicator of the alerts/notifications relevant to the user, thereby providing the most current “relative temporal information.” Therefore, the argument is not persuasive, and the rejection of Claims 2, 12, 3-11, and 13-21 under 35 U.S.C. § 102, as well as Claims 9 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, have remained in effect.
Regarding the Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 101, Applicant argues as follows:
Claims 2-21 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. This rejection is respectfully traversed. Applicant respectfully submits that independent claims 2-21 as amended are directed to statutory subject matter because the judicial exceptions recited in the claims are integrated into a practical application. Specifically, the limitation reciting "generating an aggregated notification. should be considered an additional combination of elements that integrate a judicial exception (e.g., data gathering and outputting) into a practical application because the claims provide improvement to the way a graphical user interface displays content.
The MPEP states that a claim is directed to patent-eligible subject matter if an additional element (or combination of elements) provide(s) an "improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field." MPEP 2106.049(d). The claims, as amended, provide an improvement to managing the generation of notifications by generating an aggregated notification representing a plurality of notifications corresponding to a first calendar event, therefore enabling a more efficient display of notifications on a device. The improved generating of notifications is indicative of the claims describing patent-eligible subject matter.
Example 37 of the "Subject Matter Eligibility Examples: Abstract Ideas" (https://www.uspto.gov/sies/default/files/documents/101_exampies_37to42_20190107.pdf] provided by the USPTO, provides an analogous claim and demonstrates how such a claim is patent-eligible. The example claim recites:
"1. A method of rearranging icons on a graphical user interface (GUI) of a computer system, the method comprising:
receiving, via the GUI, a user selection to organize each icon based on a specific criteria, wherein the specific criteria is an amount of use of each icon;
determining, by a processor, the amount of use of each icon over a predetermined period of time; and
automatically moving the most used icons to a position on the GUI closest to the start icon of the computer system based on the determined amount of use."
The example provides the following rationale: "The claim recites the combination of additional elements of receiving, via a GUI, a user selection to organize each icon based on the amount of use of each icon, a processor for performing the determining step, and automatically moving the most used icons to a position on the GUI closest to the start icon of the computer system based on the determined amount of use. The claim as a whole integrates the mental process into a practical application. Specifically, the additional elements recite a specific manner of automatically displaying icons to the user based on usage which provides a specific improvement over prior systems, resulting in an improved user interface for electronic devices. Thus, the claim is eligible because it is not directed to the recited judicial exception." Id p. 2-3.
Applicant's claims also fit the rationale of Example 37 because the combination of additional elements (e.g., generating an aggregated notification) with judicial exceptions (e.g., accessing a plurality of notifications) results in a claim that integrates the judicial exception into
Examiner respectfully disagrees that the claims recite a practical application to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101. It should first be noted that the example provided in the above URL could not be found, but it is also true that the example as described is not relevant to the instant claims. The example relates to the physical positioning of an icon closest to a start icon based on its determined usage amount. On the other hand, the instant specification discloses a calendar with events that are aggregated (paragraph [0043]). Given the dictionary definition of “aggregate” as “something formed by adding together several amounts or things” (dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/aggregate?q=aggregated), a person of ordinary skill in the art would presume that “aggregated notifications” is equivalent to more than one event being listed for a given day. A list of events on a given day is a simple software structure in the form of a list, and that list has nothing in common with the concept of physically counting icon usage in order to physically place the most utilized icon near a start icon on a graphical user interface (GUI).
It should also be noted that the most prominent example provided in the MPEP of case law that was able to overcome the rejection based on “significantly more” than the abstract idea is DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258-59, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106-07 (Fed. Cir. 2014). This case shares no technical resemblance to the instant application, but instead is directed to generating a composite web page that combines certain “look and feel” elements of the GUI on a host website with content of a third-party merchant, in order to retain the website visitor. In short, upon clicking an advertisement for a third-party product displayed on a host's website, the visitor is no longer transported to the third party's website, but instead is provided with the opportunity to purchase products from the third-party merchant without actually entering that merchant's website. Thus, the DDR Holdings process is also not relevant to the functioning of the instant application, since it relates to physical aspects of a GUI.
Therefore, the argument is not persuasive, and the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 has been sustained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 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.
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 2-21 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.
Regarding Claims 2 and 12,
Both independent claims recite “accessing a plurality of notifications corresponding to a first calendar event.” However, it is not clear what is meant by the term “corresponding to,” which has the following dictionary definition:
having or participating in the same relationship, such as kind, degree, position, correspondence, or function, especially with regard to the same or like wholes, such as geometric figures or sets (www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/corresponding).
Additional explanation is needed. For example, a person of ordinary skill in the art might wonder whether some or all of the notifications are occurring on the same date as the “first calendar event” and whether they may be other notifications are related to other event times?
Regarding Claims 3-11 and 13-21,
Because the claims depend from rejected base claims, they are also rejected.
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 2-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) and the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons set forth below.
Independent Claims 1 and 12 both recite similar subject matter. Independent Claim 1 recites as follows:
1. A method comprising:
accessing a plurality of notifications associated with temporal information corresponding to a first calendar event;
generating an aggregated notification, wherein the aggregated notification comprises a summary of the plurality of notifications and the temporal information corresponding to the first calendar event; and
providing for display the aggregated notification.
The Detailed Description of the specification begins with the following summary of the invention.
[0003] Notifications are used by systems and applications for various purposes such as, for example, advertising, reminders, event updates, information, messaging, emails, etc. Notifications are, generally, controlled by the applications providing the notifications to the user, typically via a device notification manager. Typically, the same notification is sent repeatedly over a period of time by an application until the notification is no longer relevant or valid, or is dismissed by the user. Many of these notifications are of the type that appeals to the user or reminds the user of some activity on a relevant day/date/time. Such notifications can be termed as notifications with temporal information, in particular, absolute temporal information.
[0004] Relative temporal information, around dates such as a birthday, an anniversary, a holiday event, a national holiday, a bank holiday, a religious event, a historical event, a user-saved date of interest, or the like is fairly easy for a user to remember. However, absolute temporal information is difficult to remember. For example, a notification that a user's favorite TV series returns at "3 pm on Tuesday 29th March" has no relative information and is difficult to remember for the user after a glance at a notification; however, a notification that the TV series will return at "3 pm on your birthday" is much easier for a user to remember. Accordingly, it would be beneficial to a user for a notification, which is provided with absolute temporal information, to be modified to comprise relative temporal information.
The purpose of the invention appears to be collecting notification information sent to users from applications, aggregating it into a summary form based on temporal aspects, and then displaying the summary.
Under the 2019 Revised Guidance1, it is necessary to first look to whether the claim recites:
(1) any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity such as a
fundamental economic practice, or mental processes); and
(2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see Manual for Patent Examining Procedure ("MPEP") §§ 2106.05(a)-(c), (e)-(h)).
Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not integrate that exception into a practical application, then it is necessary look to whether the claim:
(3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that are not "well-understood, routine, conventional" in the field (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)); or
(4) simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception.
Prong One - Abstract Idea
The Revised Guidance extracts and synthesizes key concepts identified by the courts as abstract ideas to explain that the abstract idea exception includes the following groupings of subject matter, when recited as such in a claim limitation:
(a) Mathematical concepts-mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations;
(b) Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and
(c) Mental processes-concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
Under the Revised Guidance, if the claim does not recite a judicial exception (a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or subject matter within the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas above), then the claim is patent-eligible at Prong One. However, if the claim recites a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea enumerated above, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon), the claim requires further analysis for a practical application of the judicial exception in Step 2A.
Prong Two, Step 2A - Practical Application
If a claim recites a judicial exception in Step 2A, a determination is made whether the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception by: (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s); and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application.
The seven identified "practical application" sections of the MPEP are cited in the Revised Guidance under Step 2A. The first four constitute “practical applications,” as follows:
(1) MPEP § 2106.05(a) Improvements to the Functioning of a Computer or to Any Other Technology or Technical Field
(2) MPEP § 2106.05(b) Particular Machine
(3) MPEP § 2106.05(c) Particular Transformation
(4) MPEP § 2106.05(e) Other Meaningful Limitations.
The last three do not constitute “practical applications,” as follows:
(5) MPEP § 2106.05(f) Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception
(6) MPEP § 2106.05(g) Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity
(7) MPEP § 2106.05(h) Field of Use and Technological Environment
If the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application as determined under one or more of the MPEP sections cited above, then the claim is not directed to the judicial exception, and the patent-eligibility inquiry ends. If not, then analysis proceeds to Step 2B.
Prong Two, Step 2B - "Inventive Concept" or "Significantly More"
The Federal Circuit has held that a claim that recites a judicial exception under Step 2A is nonetheless patent eligible at the Step 2B if the claim recites additional elements that provide "significantly more" than the recited judicial exception. Therefore, if a claim has been determined to be directed to a judicial exception under Step 2A, the additional elements must be evaluated individually and in combination under Step 2B to determine whether they provide an inventive concept by amounting to significantly more than the exception itself. Under the Revised Guidance, it is determined in Step 2B whether an additional element or combination of elements: (1) "Adds a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present;" or (2) "simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present." See Revised Guidance, III.B.
If the Examiner determines under Step 2B that the element (or combination of elements) amounts to significantly more than the exception itself, the claim is eligible.
However, if a determination is made that the element and combination of elements does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, the claim is ineligible under Step 2B, and the claim must be rejected for lack of subject matter eligibility.
Analysis
In accordance with Prong One of the Revised Guidance, the steps recited in independent Claims 2 and 12, both of which recite analogous subject matter, are directed to a judicial exception. The process recited in the independent claims describes Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, which includes managing personal behavior or interactions between people.
The Federal Circuit specified in Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstrom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016) as follows:
[A] large portion of the lengthy claims is devoted to enumerating types of information and information sources available within the power-grid environment. But merely selecting information, by content or source, for collection, analysis, and display does nothing significant to differentiate a process from ordinary mental processes, whose implicit exclusion from § 101 undergirds the information-based category of abstract ideas.
In the instant claims, a more simplistic version of the same concept of “selecting information, by content or source, for collection, analysis, and display is recited, as follows:
accessing a plurality of notifications associated with temporal information corresponding to a first calendar event;
generating an aggregated notification, wherein the aggregated notification comprises a summary of the plurality of notifications and the temporal information corresponding to the first calendar event; and
providing for display the aggregated notification
The instant invention specifically collects the notifications sent to a user via an application and associates them to temporal information that is a day/date/time relevant to the user, aggregates the information into a summary in calendar format as shown in Figure 2, and displays the aggregated notifications. The dependent claims also recite additional limitations associated with the aggregated information with additional calendar-related details provided, such as birthdays and holidays, user preferences based on a user profile, identification of threshold times based on calendar entries, and other related information that does not differ in substance from the concept of data collection, data aggregation, and display, and is therefore “directed to” a patent-ineligible concept.
Other than the recitations of processors recited in Claim 12 and the non-transitory computer-readable medium in paragraph [0021] of the specification, nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from being classified as Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, which includes managing personal behavior or interactions between people.
Accordingly, under Prong One, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Prong Two
Step 2A
After determining under Prong One that the claims recite a judicial exception, under Prong Two, Step 2A, the analysis is conducted to determine whether the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application.
Based on the analysis under Prong 2, Step 2A of the Revised Guidance, Claims 1-20 do not recite a “practical application” to overcome the judicial exception, which are defined as:
(1) MPEP § 2106.05(a) Improvements to the Functioning of a Computer or to Any Other Technology or Technical Field
(2) MPEP § 2106.05(b) Particular Machine
(3) MPEP § 2106.05(c) Particular Transformation
(4) MPEP § 2106.05(e) Other Meaningful Limitations
Prong Two
Step 2B
Next, if a claim has been determined to be directed to a judicial exception under the Revised Guidance, the additional elements must be evaluated individually and in combination under Step 2B to determine whether they provide an inventive concept by amounting to “significantly more” than the judicial exception itself. It must be determined in Step 2B whether an additional element or combination of elements: (1) “Adds a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present;” or (2) “simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.” See Revised Guidance, III.B.
In the instant application, the claims only recite generic computing elements, and the components are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components, all of which are “well-understood, routine, conventional activities.”
Accordingly, the analysis under the multiple steps of the Revised Guidance leads to the determination that independent Claims 2 and 12 are directed to an abstract idea under 35 U.S.C. 101, and so are the dependent claims, which incorporate the abstract idea by virtue of their dependencies on the independent claims and their additional ineligible concepts. Therefore, Claims 2-21 are directed to a judicial exception, and are not patent-eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 2-6, 8, 10-16, 18, and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Monte (US 2018/0095938 A1, hereinafter referred to as Monte).
Regarding Claims 2 and 12,
Monte teaches:
“accessing a plurality of notifications associated with relative temporal information corresponding to a first calendar event” (paragraph [0047]). [Fetch system includes a UI component in some embodiments and can operate to receive and reply to a wide variety of alerts, notifications, events, appointments and other triggers related to integrated calendar and timeline functions ([0047]). Example notifications and alerts include: Calendar Appointments and Meeting Reminders ([0063]-[0064]).] (NOTE: The specification discloses as follows: “Relative temporal information, around dates such as a birthday, an anniversary, a holiday event, a national holiday, a bank holiday, a religious event, a historical event, a user-saved date of interest, or the like is fairly easy for a user to remember” (paragraph [0004]). The Monte disclosure of “events, appointments and other triggers related to integrated calendar and timeline” is equivalent to “relative temporal information,” and this equivalence applies to all incidences of the same terminology in other claims as well.)
“generating an aggregated notification, wherein the aggregated notification comprises a summary of the plurality of notifications and the relative temporal information corresponding to the first calendar event” (paragraph [0218]; fig. 25, elements 2502, 2505, 2515). [The dynamic alert and notification banner 2505 in combination with a calendar view 2502 is automatically and dynamically presented via a sliding down animation in response to a new alert/notification being received from the system, and as new alerts/notifications are received, an alert and notification banner is dynamically updated and presented in a UI to provide a current status indicator of the alerts/notifications relevant to the user; in the example of fig. 25, banner 2505 provides text notifying a user of the total number of alerts ("14" as indicated in UI button 2515) and text ("You have 14 Alerts 2 New 1 Unread 11 Read") describing the status and number corresponding to each alert/notification status ([0218]).] (NOTE: The numbers shown in the dynamic alert and notification banner are equivalent to the “aggregated notification” and the associated calendar shown as part of the banner to “the temporal information corresponding to the first calendar event.”)
“providing for display the aggregated notification” (paragraph [0218]). [An alert and notification banner is dynamically updated and presented in a UI to provide a current status indicator of the alerts/notifications relevant to the user ([0218]).] (NOTE: The UI that displays the alert and notification banner is equivalent to “providing for display the aggregated notification.”)
“A system comprising: input/output circuitry configured to receive a plurality of notifications; control circuitry” as recited in Claim 12 (paragraphs [0192], [0184]; fig. 22, elements 2200, 2205, 2225). [A hardware module of a special-purpose processor, such as a Field-Programmable Gate Array (FPGA) or an Application Specific Integrated Circuit (ASIC) includes dedicated circuitry or logic that is permanently configured to perform certain operations ([0192]). Functional system diagram 2200 includes an input/output (I/O) plugins layer 2225 coupled to logic layer 2205 ([0184]).]
Regarding Claims 3 and 13,
Monte teaches all the limitations of parent Claims 2 and 12.
Monte teaches:
“detecting, based on the relative temporal information, a second calendar event, wherein generating the aggregated notification further comprises: modifying the relative temporal information corresponding to the first calendar event to include information describing the second calendar event” (paragraphs [0047], [0041], [0218]; fig. 1, elements 100, 105, 110). [Fetch system includes a UI component in some embodiments and can operate to receive and reply to a wide variety of alerts, notifications, events, appointments and other triggers related to integrated calendar and timeline functions ([0047]). Architecture 100 includes a calendar component 105 that provides calendar and calendar-related functionality and a timeline component 110 that provides event organizational functions, in which calendar 105 creates, modifies, and manages events equal to or less than a day in duration, whereas timeline 110 creates, modifies, and otherwise manages events having a duration of greater than one day; the durations can be modified by a user, developer or other entity ([0041]). The dynamic alert and notification banner 2505 in combination with a calendar view 2502 is automatically and dynamically presented via a sliding down animation in response to a new alert/notification being received from the system, and the status of the alert/notification changes from "new" to another state, such as "unread" or "read, and the color of UI button 2515 automatically changes ([0218]).] (NOTE: The system inherently handles a plurality of calendar events, including “a second calendar event.” The numbers shown in the dynamic alert and notification banner are equivalent to the “aggregated notification” and when the banner shows status changes “modifying the temporal information” occurs.)
Regarding Claims 4 and 14,
Monte teaches all the limitations of parent Claims 2 and 12.
Monte teaches:
“accessing a user profile” (paragraphs [0140], [0144]). [A feature of a user settings menu includes one or more user settings or parameters that can be configured to a user's particular preferences ([0140]). User Profile & System Permissions includes: User selection or corporate/organization provisioned role names, ID and definitions ([0144]).]
“determining a preferred vocabulary associated with the user profile” (paragraph [0184]). [The logic layer of the system includes a plurality of functional modules or features, including UI interactions, composite views, user prompts, and actions (UI interactions) layer and a Natural Language Vocabulary & Library feature ([0184]).]
“modifying the aggregated notification to include the preferred vocabulary” (paragraph [0187]). [Data modeling layer includes the functions of Semantic Vocabulary & Routing, along with User Profile & Role Data ([0187]).]
Regarding Claims 5 and 15,
Monte teaches all the limitations of parent Claims 2 and 12.
Monte teaches:
“wherein the plurality of notifications further comprises relative temporal information corresponding to a second calendar event, and wherein the aggregated notification further comprises the relative temporal information corresponding to the second calendar event” (paragraphs [0042], [0043]; fig. 1, elements 105, 120). [Calendar 105 is configured to organize calendar events based on timespans of days, weeks, and months, and views 120 can provide calendar views organizing calendar events as group(s) of days, weeks, and months ([0042]). Calendar events managed by calendar 105 receive temporal information relating to events a day or less in duration ([0043]).]
Regarding Claims 6 and 16,
Monte teaches all the limitations of parent Claims 2 and 12.
Monte teaches:
“receiving a user input corresponding to the first calendar event, wherein the user input is associated with a user profile; and inserting the first calendar event into a calendar associated with the user profile” (paragraphs [0140], [0144], [0128]; fig. 10B, element 1030). [A feature of a user settings menu includes one or more user settings or parameters that can be configured to a user's particular preferences ([0140]). User Profile & System Permissions includes: User selection or corporate/organization provisioned role names, ID and definitions ([0144]). FIG. 10B, flow diagram 1030 represents a calendar entry synchronization flow in which a user inputs new calendar event entries, such as appointments, meetings, and calls of one day or less in duration, according to a date, time, topic and duration ([0128]).]
Regarding Claims 8 and 18,
Monte teaches all the limitations of parent Claims 2 and 12.
Monte teaches:
“determining a user preference associated with the user profile; and modifying the relative temporal information based on the user preference” (paragraphs [0140], [0141]). [A feature of a user settings menu includes one or more user settings or parameters that can be configured to a user's particular preferences ([0140]). One example embodiment includes the settings or parameters of All Day Durations, User Profile & System Permissions, and Clock Source ([0141]).] (NOTE: Parameters entered by the user of All Day Durations and Clock Source are equivalent to “temporal information based on the user preference.”)
Regarding Claims 10 and 20,
Monte teaches all the limitations of parent Claims 8 and 18.
Monte teaches:
“determining, from the user profile, the first calendar event is one of: a birthday, an anniversary, a holiday event, a national holiday, a bank holiday, a religious event, an historical event, a user-saved date of interest” (paragraph [0098]; fig. 7A, element 720). [The current day line 720 in each UI indicates the current day (today) as being located in the center of each UI, and as such, "today" may be the user's center point of interest as determined by, for example, the current day having been previously selected in the calendar UI context; in this manner, the user's point of interest of "today" is seen as being synchronized between the calendar and timeline contexts in an integrated calendar and timeline application; in a similar manner, a user can select another day in the calendar context ([0098]).] (NOTE: The date chosen as the user's center point of interest is equivalent to “a user-saved date of interest.”)
Regarding Claims 11 and 21,
Monte teaches all the limitations of parent Claims 2 and 12.
Monte teaches:
“wherein the plurality of notifications is received by an application executed on a device” (paragraphs [0047]; fig. 1, element 175). [The fetch application 175 operates to receive and reply to a wide variety of alerts, notifications, events, appointments, milestones, and deadlines ([0047]).]
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.
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 non-obviousness.
Claims 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Monte (US 2018/0095938 A1, hereinafter referred to as Monte) in view of Xue et al. (US 2015/0207916 A1, hereinafter referred to as Xue).
Regarding Claims 9 and 19,
Monte teaches all the limitations of parent Claims 8 and 18.
Monte teaches:
“the modifying the relative temporal information is in response to relative the temporal information” (paragraph [0041]; fig. 1, elements 105, 110). [In general, calendar 105 creates, modifies, and manages events equal to or less than a day in duration, whereas timeline 110 creates, modifies, and otherwise manages events having a duration of greater than one day ([0041]).]
Monte does not teach:
“wherein the user preference comprises a threshold time; and being less than the threshold time.”
Xue teaches:
“wherein the user preference comprises a threshold time” and “being less than the threshold time” (paragraph [0053]). [One or more thresholds include one or more parameters associated with the one or more notifications, including duration (how long), and similar parameters; the one or more thresholds can be defined by one or more users, one or more devices, one or more service providers, one or more applications ([0053]).] (NOTE: The similar parameters to “duration” may include “being less than the threshold time.”)
Both Monte and Xue teach systems which mange notifications received in a networking system, and those systems are comparable to that of the instant application. Because the two cited references are analogous to the instant application, it 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, to include in the Monte disclosure, the use of threshold times, as taught by Xue. Such inclusion would have provided a methodology for limiting the notifications being processed, and would have been consistent with the rationale of using known techniques to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way to show a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP 2143(I)(C)) under KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 and 17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. However, since the claims are currently rejected under 35 U.S.C.101 as being directed to an abstract idea and under 35 U.S.C.112(b) as well, Claims 7 and 17 are also rejected based on their dependence on rejected independent Claims 2 and 12, and those rejections must be overcome before allowance can be achieved.
Claims 7 and 17 recite the following subject matter not found in the prior art:
insert(ing) the first calendar event into the calendar associated with the user profile comprises:
identifying an insertion point within a threshold time from the first calendar event, wherein the insertion point corresponds to a free time slot in the calendar; and
inserting the first calendar event at the insertion point.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 PHYLLIS A BOOK whose telephone number is (571)272-0698. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00 am - 7:00 pm.
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, GLENTON BURGESS can be reached at 571-272-3949. 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.
/PHYLLIS A BOOK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2454
1 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50
(January 7, 2019) (hereinafter "Revised Guidance")
(https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2019-01-07/pdf/2018-28282.pdf)
Prosecution Insights