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 .
Detailed Action
In amendments dated 12/28/25, Applicant amended claims 1, 8, and 15, canceled no claims, and added no new claims. Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Objections
Claims 1, 8, and 15 are objected to because of the following informality: amendments in the third and fourth limitations recite “the context object” which lacks antecedent basis.
Obviousness Type Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as 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 1-6, 8-13, and 15-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,197,518 in view of Haig (US 12,141,523). With respect to independent claims 1, 8, and 15, the ‘518 patent teaches identifying, by at least one processing device, a plurality of content elements in a content object; receiving supplemental data collected by one or more enricher micro services invoked based on the plurality of content elements in the content object; creating a nudge card for the content object comprising the plurality of content elements, the supplemental data, the one or more topics in the context object, an expiration timer, and at least one interface element associated with an action, wherein creating the nudge card for the content object comprises: selecting a template for the nudge card corresponding to a content object type of the content object; and populating the selected template with the plurality of content elements, the supplemental data, the one or more topics, and the expiration timer; and causing display of the nudge card for the content object within a nudge card feed within a graphical user interface at a client device. The ‘518 patent does not teach analyzing, using machine learning techniques, text in the context object, thereby identifying one or more topics in the content object. Haig teaches this in taking keywords from input from a user and identifying channel subject matter related to the input using a content fill model, which is a large language model and machine learning (columns 25-26 lines 65-29, column 28 lines 42-55, column 29 lines 14-35). It would have been obvious to have combined the use of machine learning large language model to determine subject matter from keywords in the user input (content topics per specification 0046) with the techniques for creating an intelligent prompt in the ’518 patent to add useful information of that subject matter identifying content object topics in the output template nudge card.
See chart below
Instant Application claim
‘518 Patent claim
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
6
6
8
7
9
8
10
9
11
10
12
11
13
12
15
1, 13
16
14
17
15
18
16
19
17
20
6
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to mental processes without significantly more. Independent claims 1, 8, and 15 each recites identifying, by at least one processing device, a plurality of content elements in a content object; analyzing, using machine learning techniques, text in the context object, thereby identifying one or more topics in the content object; creating a nudge card for the content object comprising the plurality of content elements, the supplemental data, the one or more topics, an expiration timer, and at least one interface element associated with an action, wherein creating the nudge card for the content object comprises: selecting a template for the nudge card corresponding to a content object type of the content object; and populating the selected template with the plurality of content elements, the supplemental data, the one or more topics, and the expiration timer. Identifying content elements is evaluating and a mental process; analyzing text in the content object is recited broadly and is a mental process accomplishable in the human mind or on paper, and using a machine learning model is merely applying it and is not significantly more than an abstract idea per Recentive Analytics v. Fox Broadcasting Corp. (134 F.4th 1205, 2025 U.S.P.Q.2d 628); creating a nudge card comprising content elements, supplemental data, one or more topics, a timer, and an interface element is creating a nudge card with data and is a mental process accomplishable in the human mind or on paper; selecting a template is evaluating and a mental process; and populating the template with data is recited broadly and a mental process accomplishable in the human mind or on paper. Each claim recites additional elements of receiving supplemental data collected by one or more enricher micro services invoked based on the plurality of content elements in the content object, which is an input step and insignificant extra-solution activity; and causing display of the nudge card for the content object within a nudge card feed within a graphical user interface at a client device, which is an output step and insignificant extra-solution activity. Claim 8 recites one or more processors and a memory coupled to the one or more processors and claim 15 recites a non-transitory computer readable medium, which are each generic components of a computer. Examiner notes specification paragraph 0002 describes the failure of professionals to make well-informed decisions prevents higher returns for businesses, current tools do not provide timely, valuable insights with notifications, and there is a need for improved mechanisms for generating intelligent prompts to enable better decision making. Specification paragraph 0013 states “the disclosed system provides several technical implementations which include at least, but not limited to: 1) continuously crawling various third-party sources to obtain data regarding upcoming decisions and tasks; 2) generating intelligent prompts that include contextual options based on data collected from third-party sources to enable earlier actions and collaboration with others; and 3) utilizing behavioral science and machine learning to deliver the intelligent prompts in a personally engaging user interface.” These steps are not claimed, plus the claim steps do not recite a particular improvement in any technology or function of a computer per MPEP 2106.04(d) and do not recite any unconventional steps in the invention per MPEP 2106.05(a). Therefore, the recited mental processes are not integrated into a practical application. Taking the claims as a whole, receiving supplemental data by one or more enricher micro services and transmitting the nudge card for the content object to a client device are each recited broadly and amount to receiving and sending data across a network per specification paragraph 0030 and figure 1 component 110, which are routine and conventional activities per the list of such activities in MPEP 2106.05(d) part II. The one or more processors, a memory coupled to the one or more processors, and non-transitory computer readable medium, are each still generic components of a computer. Thus the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited mental processes.
Claims 2, 9, and 16 each recites obtaining a profile for the user from a profile database, wherein the profile comprises one or more channel subscriptions and a weighting value for each of the one or more channel subscriptions, which is retrieving data from a memory and a routine and conventional activity per the list of such activities in MPEP 2106.05(d) part II; retrieving nudge cards with one or more topics matching the one or more channel subscriptions in the profile, which is retrieving data from a memory and a routine and conventional activity per the list of such activities in MPEP 2106.05(d) part II; selecting the retrieved nudge cards with expiration timers that have not yet elapsed, and selecting a nudge card is evaluating and a mental process; determining a relevance score for each selected nudge card based on the one or more topics for the nudge card and the weighting value for each of the one or more channel subscriptions, and determining a score is recited broadly and is a mental process accomplishable in the human mind or on paper; and generating a nudge card feed using nudge cards that have a relevance score above a predetermined threshold, which is recited broadly and is a mental process accomplishable in the human mind or on paper. Claims 3, 10, and 17 each recites filtering the nudge card feed using one or more rules, and filtering is evaluating and a mental process; and arranging the nudge cards in the nudge card feed based on the relevance scores, and arranging data is recited broadly and is a mental process accomplishable in the human mind or on paper.
Claims 4, 11, and 18 each recites receiving an indication of user interaction with the at least one interface element in the nudge card, which is recited broadly and amounts to receiving data across a network per specification paragraph 0030 and figure 1 component 110, which is routine and conventional activity per the list of such activities in MPEP 2106.05(d) part II; and updating the weighting value associated with each of the one or more channel subscriptions in the profile based on the received indication, and updating a value is storing a value and is routine and conventional activity per the list of such activities in MPEP 2106.05(d) part II. Claims 5, 12, and 19 each recites wherein the supplemental data collected by the one or more enricher micro services comprises at least one of: customer relationship management records, relationship data, social networking feeds, company logos, geolocation data, and weather data, and data is a mental process accomplishable in the human mind or on paper. Claims 6, 13, and 20 each recites wherein the content object type comprises an announcement, a task notification, or a request, and data is a mental process accomplishable in the human mind or on paper. Claims 7 and 14 each recites wherein the nudge card for the content object is a JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) document, and a JavaScript document is data and a mental process accomplishable in the human mind or on paper.
Relevant Prior Art
During his search for prior art, Examiner found the following reference to be relevant to Applicant's claimed invention. Said reference is listed on the Notice of References form included in this office action:
Carbune et al (US 20180131655) teaches receiving even information and creating notifications for other users about the event, does not teach the event having elements or analyzing content of the event to identify topics in the event (paragraphs 0003-004, 0013, 0030-0032, 0063).
Responses to Applicants Remarks
Regarding objections to claims 1, 8, and 15 for antecedent basis of “the one or more topics,” in view of amendments reciting identifying one or more topics, these objections are withdrawn. Regarding rejections of claims 1-6, 8-13, and 15-20 for obviousness type double patenting over US Patent 12,197,518, Applicant’s Remarks page 11 asserts a Terminal Disclaimer was submitted but Examiner does not see a Terminal Disclaimer in the application file so Examiner maintained these rejections above and added Haig as a secondary reference to teach the amended subject matter in independent claims 1, 8, and 15. Regarding rejections of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 101 for reciting mental processes without significantly more, Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are not persuasive. On pages 9-10 Applicant discusses Step 2A Prong One of the Eligibility Analysis and asserts the “causing display …” limitation is not a mental process. Examiner agrees and believes it is an additional element as noted in the rejections above. Examiner identified the “identifying …,” “analyzing …,” “creating a nudge card …,” “selecting a template …,” and “populating the selected template …” limitations as mental processes in the rejections above. On pages 10-11 Applicant discusses Step 2A Prong Two of the Eligibility Analysis and asserts the claims recite a practical application and show an improvement in the function of a computer, namely an improvement to a user interface in a computer. Applicant discusses the “analyzing …” and “causing display …” limitations as reciting this improvement to a user interface. Examiner disagrees as the “analyzing” limitation is recited broadly and is a mental process accomplishable in the human mind or on paper while using a machine learning model is not significantly more than an abstract idea per the Recentive Analytics v. Fox Broadcasting Corp. case as shown in the rejections above. The “analyzing” limitation along with “identifying,” “selecting,” “populating,” and “causing display” limitations do not recite details of the invention that might show an improvement to a user interface. Furthermore, per specification 0013, Examiner does not see how these limitations show the invention “1) continuously crawling various third-party sources to obtain data regarding upcoming decisions and tasks; 2) generating intelligent prompts that include contextual options based on data collected from third-party sources to enable earlier actions and collaboration with others; and 3) utilizing behavioral science and machine learning to deliver the intelligent prompts in a personally engaging user interface.”
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.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRUCE M MOSER whose telephone number is (571)270-1718. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9a-5p.
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, Boris Gorney can be reached at 571 270-5626. 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.
/BRUCE M MOSER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2154 1/29/26