DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the Application Ser. No. 18/971,005 filed on December 6, 2024. Claims 1-20 are pending and are examined.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for domestic priority as a continuation under 35 U.S.C. 120 based on Non-Provisional Application Ser. No. 18/060,980 filed on December 2, 2022.
Drawings
Drawings were received on December 6, 2024. These drawings are accepted.
Information Disclosure Statement
Applicant’s submission of the Information Disclosure Statement dated December 6, 2024, is acknowledged by the Examiner and the cited references have been considered in the examination of the claims now pending (see attached PTO-1449).
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, 2, 5-15 and 19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1-4 and 6-16 of issued patent US 12,199,931 B2 in view of Barsness et al., Pub. No. US 2018/0006979 A1, hereby “Barsness”.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing that the claims cover substantially the same subject matter, i.e., monitoring and managing message content. The following charts provide examples of how independent Claim 1 of the instant application corresponds to Claims 1 and 10 of the issued patent. Similar relationships hold for the remaining claims.
Instant Application
Issued Patent
18/971,005
US 12,199,931 B2
1. A device, comprising:
1. A device, comprising:
a processing system including a processor; and
a processing system including a processor; and
a memory that stores executable instructions that, when executed by the processing system, facilitate performance of operations, the operations comprising:
a memory that stores executable instructions that, when executed by the processing system, facilitate performance of operations, the operations comprising:
monitoring an activity of a first user to detect that the first user is preparing a message that is to be sent to a second user and a third user;
determining that a first user is composing a first message in a first application, the composing including a generation or an incorporation of first content;
based on the determining, identifying a second user that is targeted as a recipient of the first message;
obtaining first data pertaining to the second user;
obtaining, based on the identifying of the second user, first data pertaining to the second user;
analyzing the first content relative to at least the first data;
10. The device of claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise:
based on the determining, identifying a third user that is targeted as a recipient of the first message; and
obtaining second data pertaining to the third user;
obtaining, based on the identifying of the third user, second data pertaining to the third user,
identifying a content of the message being prepared by the first user;
wherein the analyzing of the first content of the first message relative to at least the first data comprises analyzing the first content of the first message relative to the second data.
analyzing the content relative to the first data and the second data;
determining, based on the analyzing, that the content departs from a preference or an expectation of the second user, the third user, or a combination thereof, in an amount greater than a threshold;
based on the determining, providing the first user with guidance for modifying the content;
providing, based on the analyzing, guidance to the first user, wherein the guidance comprises a recommendation regarding a modification of the first content of the first message and the guidance includes an identification of a reason why the recommendation is being provided in respect of the second user;
obtaining an indication that the first user accepts at least a portion of the recommendation;
based on the providing, modifying the content in accordance with the guidance, resulting in modified content; and
incorporating, based on the obtaining of the indication, second content as part of the first message, the second content being different from the first content;
transmitting the message with the modified content to a first communication device of the second user and a second communication device of the third user.
transmitting, based on the incorporating, the first message to a communication device of the second user, resulting in a transmitted first message; and
identifying, based on the transmitting of the first message, a reaction of the second user to the transmitted first message, resulting in an identified reaction, wherein the identified reaction includes: a tone of voice of the second user, a body posture of the second user, a first action on the part of the second user relative to a first timeout, and a lack of a second action on the part of the second user relative to a second timeout.
Issued Patent US 12,199,931 B2 does not explicitly disclose “determining, based on the analyzing, that the content departs from a preference or an expectation of the second user, the third user, or a combination thereof, in an amount greater than a threshold;
based on the determining, providing the first user with guidance for modifying the content (emphasis added)”.
In the same field of endeavor, Barsness discloses “determining, based on the analyzing, that the content departs from a preference or an expectation of the second user, the third user, or a combination thereof, in an amount greater than a threshold (Barsness fig. 1 and paragraph 21: the writing style of the composed message is compared against the writing habits of the recipients and a significant difference is determined when the difference exceeds a pre-determined threshold);
based on the determining, providing the first user with guidance for modifying the content (Barsness fig. 1 and paragraphs 21 and 24: a suggested modification to the content of the composed message is presented to the user in response to determining a significant difference in writing styles exists)”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the device of US 12,199,931 B2 to suggest a modification to the composed message in response to determining a difference in the writing style of the message being composed and the writing style of the intended recipient exceeds a threshold as taught by Barsness. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine suggesting a modification to the composed message in response to determining a difference in the writing style of the message being composed and the writing style of the intended recipient exceeds a threshold to ensure the message content is viewed positively by the recipient (Barsness paragraphs 20-21).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-11 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barsness et al., Pub. No. US 2018/0006979 A1, hereby “Barsness”, in view of Kemp et al., Pub. No. US 2021/0326528 A1, hereby “Kemp”.
Regarding Claim 1, Barsness discloses “A device (Barsness fig. 5 and paragraphs 4 and 52: computer system 501), comprising:
a processing system including a processor (Barsness fig. 5 and paragraphs 4 and 52-53: processor 510); and
a memory that stores executable instructions that, when executed by the processing system, facilitate performance of operations (Barsness fig. 5 and paragraphs 4 and 52-53: memory 520), the operations comprising:
monitoring an activity of a first user to detect that the first user is preparing a message that is to be sent to a second user and a third user (Barsness fig. 1 and paragraphs 3, 17 and 19: a composed message is detected while a user is in the process of composing the message, wherein the composed message may be addressed to a multiple recipients, i.e., a second user and a third user);
obtaining first data pertaining to the second user (Barsness fig. 1 and paragraphs 3 and 19-20: the writing habits of the recipients are obtained through analysis of previous messages sent by the recipients);
obtaining second data pertaining to the third user (Barsness fig. 1 and paragraphs 3 and 19-20: the writing habits of the recipients are obtained through analysis of previous messages sent by the recipients);
identifying a content of the message being prepared by the first user (Barsness fig. 1 and paragraphs 3 and 18: the content of the composed message is analyzed using natural language processing);
analyzing the content relative to the first data and the second data (Barsness fig. 1 and paragraphs 3 and 21: the writing style of the composed message is compared against the writing habits of the recipients);
determining, based on the analyzing, that the content departs from a preference or an expectation of the second user, the third user, or a combination thereof, in an amount greater than a threshold (Barsness fig. 1 and paragraphs 3, 21 and 45: the writing style of the composed message is compared against the writing habits of the recipients and a significant difference is determined when the difference exceeds a pre-determined threshold);
based on the determining, providing the first user with guidance for modifying the content (Barsness fig. 1 and paragraphs 3, 21 and 24: a suggested modification to the composed message, i.e., guidance, is presented to the user when a significant difference is identified)”.
However, while Barsness discloses that the suggested modification to the content of the message is presented to the composer (Barsness paragraph 24), Barsness does not explicitly disclose “based on the providing, modifying the content in accordance with the guidance, resulting in modified content; and
transmitting the message with the modified content to a first communication device of the second user and a second communication device of the third user.”
In the same field of endeavor, Kemp discloses “based on the providing, modifying the content in accordance with the guidance, resulting in modified content (Kemp paragraphs 119, 121 and 131: proposed content 510 is modified based on the recommended content edits 520); and
transmitting the message with the modified content to a first communication device of the second user and a second communication device of the third user (Kemp paragraphs 43, 121, 124 and 131: the modified content is transmitted to the target recipients).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the device of Barsness to modify the content of the composed message based on the suggested modification as taught by Kemp. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine modifying the content of the composed message based on the suggested modification to increase positive responses from the message recipients (Kemp paragraph 4).
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Barsness and Kemp discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1.
Additionally, Barsness discloses “wherein the first data pertains to a second message involving the first user and the second user (Barsness fig. 1 and paragraph 19: the writing habits of the recipient are determined by analyzing previous messages including messages sent by the recipients to the composer).”
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Barsness and Kemp discloses all of the limitations of Claim 2.
Additionally, Barsness discloses “wherein the second message involves the third user (Barsness fig. 1 and paragraph 19: the previous messages may include messages sent by a recipient or in which a recipient was otherwise involved – while not explicitly stated, this is suggestive of messages sent by one of the recipients to the composer and another of the recipients).”
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Barsness and Kemp discloses all of the limitations of Claim 2.
Additionally, Barsness discloses “wherein the second message involves a fourth user (Barsness fig. 1 and paragraph 19: the previous messages may include messages sent by the recipient to a third party and then forwarded to the user – while not explicitly stated, “a third party” is suggestive of a fourth user that is not one of the recipients of the composed message).”
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Barsness and Kemp discloses all of the limitations of Claim 2.
Additionally, Barsness discloses “wherein the message is prepared in a first application (Barsness paragraph 17: the composed message may be a message composed using an email software, i.e., a first application).”
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Barsness and Kemp discloses all of the limitations of Claim 5.
Additionally, Barsness discloses “wherein the second message was conveyed in a second application prior to the first user preparing the message in the first application, and wherein the second application is different from the first application (Barsness fig. 1 and paragraphs 17 and 19: the previous messages may have been sent using SMS or social-media application, i.e., a second application that is different from the first application).”
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Barsness and Kemp discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1.
Additionally, Barsness discloses “wherein the first data pertains to a use of a messaging application by the second user (Barsness fig. 1 and paragraphs 17 and 19: the writing habits of a recipient are determined based on SMS messages sent by the recipient or posts authored by the recipient using a social-media application, i.e., use of a messaging application by the recipient).”
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Barsness and Kemp discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1.
Additionally, Kemp discloses “wherein the guidance comprises a recommended action, and wherein the modifying of the content is based on an acceptance of the recommended action by the first user (Kemp paragraphs 119 and 131: recommended content edits 520 are provided to the author for approval before they are applied to the proposed content 510).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the device of Barsness to modify the content of the composed message based on the suggested modification as taught by Kemp for the reasons set forth in the rejection of Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Barsness and Kemp discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1.
Additionally, Kemp discloses “wherein the modified content omits at least a portion of the content (Kemp paragraphs 119, 121, 129 and 131: the original sentences/words of proposed content 510 are replaced by the recommended content edits 520).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the device of Barsness to modify the content of the composed message based on the suggested modification as taught by Kemp for the reasons set forth in the rejection of Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Barsness and Kemp discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1.
Additionally, Kemp discloses “obtaining a first reaction of the second user to the modified content, resulting in an identified reaction (Kemp paragraphs 120-121 and 132: feedback on the modified content, i.e., a reaction, is received from the recipients of the modified content).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the device of Barsness to receive feedback on the content from the recipient of the modified message as taught by Kemp. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine receiving feedback on the content from the recipient of the modified message to update the writing preferences of the recipient that are utilized to suggest the modifications of the message content (Kemp paragraphs 120-121).
18. Regarding Claim 11, the combination of Barsness and Kemp discloses all of the limitations of Claim 10.
Additionally, Kemp discloses “generating or modifying a profile for the second user to incorporate the identified reaction (Kemp paragraphs 120 and 132: profile data 422 of a target recipient is updated based on the provided feedback).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the device of Barsness to receive feedback on the content from the recipient of the modified message as taught by Kemp for the reasons set forth in the rejection of Claim 10.
Regarding Claim 19, Barsness discloses “A method (Barsness fig. 1 and paragraphs 4 and 17: a method, performed by a system comprising a processor and memory, of modifying content of a composed message) comprising:
monitoring, by a processing system including a processor, an activity of a first user to detect that the first user is preparing a message (Barsness fig. 1 and paragraphs 3, 17 and 19: a composed message is detected while a user is in the process of composing the message, wherein the composed message may be addressed to a multiple recipients, i.e., a second user and a third user);
obtaining, by the processing system, first data pertaining to a second user; (Barsness fig. 1 and paragraphs 3 and 19-20: the writing habits of the recipients are obtained through analysis of previous messages sent by the recipients);
obtaining, by the processing system, second data pertaining to a third user (Barsness fig. 1 and paragraphs 3 and 19-20: the writing habits of the recipients are obtained through analysis of previous messages sent by the recipients);
obtaining, by the processing system, third data pertaining to a fourth user (Barsness fig. 1 and paragraphs 3 and 19-20: the writing habits of the recipients are obtained through analysis of previous messages sent by the recipients);
identifying, by the processing system, a content of the message being prepared by the first user (Barsness fig. 1 and paragraphs 3 and 18: the content of the composed message is analyzed using natural language processing);
analyzing, by the processing system, the content relative to the first data, the second data, and the third data (Barsness fig. 1 and paragraphs 3 and 21: the writing style of the composed message is compared against the writing habits of the recipients);
determining, by the processing system and based on the analyzing, that the content departs from a preference or an expectation of the second user, the third user, the fourth user, or a combination thereof, in an amount greater than a threshold (Barsness fig. 1 and paragraphs 3, 21 and 45: the writing style of the composed message is compared against the writing habits of the recipients and a significant difference is determined when the difference exceeds a pre-determined threshold);
determining, by the processing system and based on the analyzing, that the content departs from a preference or an expectation of the second user, the third user, the fourth user, or a combination thereof, in an amount greater than a threshold (Barsness fig. 1 and paragraphs 3, 21 and 24: a suggested modification to the composed message, i.e., guidance, is presented to the user when a significant difference is identified)”.
However, while Barsness discloses that the suggested modification to the content of the message is presented to the composer (Barsness paragraph 24), Barsness does not explicitly disclose “based on the providing, modifying, by the processing system, the content in accordance with the guidance, resulting in modified content; and
transmitting, by the processing system, the message with the modified content to a first communication device of the second user.”
In the same field of endeavor, Kemp discloses “based on the providing, modifying, by the processing system, the content in accordance with the guidance, resulting in modified content (Kemp paragraphs 119, 121 and 131: proposed content 510 is modified based on the recommended content edits 520); and
transmitting, by the processing system, the message with the modified content to a first communication device of the second user (Kemp paragraphs 43, 121, 124 and 131: the modified content is transmitted to the target recipients).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the device of Barsness to modify the content of the composed message based on the suggested modification as taught by Kemp. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine modifying the content of the composed message based on the suggested modification to increase positive responses from the message recipients (Kemp paragraph 4).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Barsness and Kemp in view of Aravkin et al., Pub. No. US 2016/0072756 A1, hereby “Aravkin”.
Regarding Claim 12, the combination of Barsness and Kemp discloses all of the limitations of Claim 10.
However, while Barsness discloses that the content of the composed message can be analyzed based on reactions to previous messages sent by the composer (Barsness paragraphs 16 and 38), and Kemp discloses that the target recipient provides feedback on the modified content (Kemp paragraphs 120 and 132), the combination of Barsness and Kemp does not explicitly disclose “transmitting an indication of the identified reaction to a communication device of the first user.”
In the same field of endeavor, Aravkin discloses providing an indication of the total disposition score, i.e., an indication of the reaction, of a recipient to a communication to the sender of (Aravkin figs. 1 and 10 and paragraphs 32, 34, 112 and 119: server 104 sends an indication of the total disposition score, i.e., an indication of the identified reaction, to client 114 associated with the sender of the electronic communication).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the device of Barsness, as modified by Kemp, to provide an indication of the recipient’s feedback on the modified content to the composer of the message as taught by Aravkin because doing so constitutes applying a known technique (sending an indication of the recipient’s reaction to a message to the message sender) to known devices and/or methods (a computer system configured to modify the content of a composed message) ready for improvement to yield predictable and desirable results (awareness by the composer of the recipient reaction to the message). See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (U.S. 2007).
Claims 13, 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Barsness and Kemp in view of Daga et al., Pub. No. US 2022/0329556 A1, hereby “Daga”.
Regarding Claim 13, the combination of Barsness and Kemp discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1.
Additionally, Barsness discloses “wherein the message is prepared in a first application (Barsness paragraph 17: the composed message may be a message composed using an email software, i.e., a first application)”.
However, while Barsness discloses presenting a suggested modification of the content while the message is being composed (Barsness paragraphs 17 and 24), Barsness does not explicitly disclose “determining that the first user exited a second application and activated the first application on a communication device of the first user within a threshold amount of time,
wherein the guidance is based on the determining that the first user exited the second application and activated the first application on the communication device within the threshold amount of time.”
In the same field of endeavor, Daga discloses “determining that the first user exited a second application and activated the first application on a communication device of the first user within a threshold amount of time (Daga paragraphs 60 and 126-127: based on having a plurality of active messaging windows, communication device 105 identifies that content entered into a messaging window associated with the recipient, i.e., the first application, is intended for a conversation associated with a different messaging window using a different messaging application, i.e., a second application – while not explicitly stated, the existence of a time threshold is implied by the messaging windows being active);
wherein the guidance is based on the determining that the first user exited the second application and activated the first application on the communication device within the threshold amount of time (Daga paragraphs 60 and 126-127: the communication device 105 outputs a notification suggesting sending the communication via the different active messaging application than the one in which the message is currently being entered).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the device of Barsness, as modified by Kemp, to suggest sending a message using a different active messaging application based on an analysis of the message content and the recipient as taught by Daga. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine suggesting sending a message using a different active messaging application based on an analysis of the message content and the recipient to help ensure the message content is sent to appropriate recipients using the intended application (Daga paragraphs 41 and 127).
Regarding Claim 15, Barsness discloses “A non-transitory machine-readable medium, comprising executable instructions that, when executed by a processing system including a processor, facilitate performance of operations (Barsness fig. 1 and paragraphs 4 and 58: a computer readable storage medium comprising instructions implementing a method for modifying the content of a composed message), the operations comprising:
detecting that a first user is preparing a message in a first application that is to be sent to a second user and a third user (Barsness fig. 1 and paragraphs 3, 17 and 19: a composed message is detected while a user is in the process of composing the message, wherein the composed message may be addressed to a multiple recipients, i.e., a second user and a third user);
obtaining first data pertaining to the second user (Barsness fig. 1 and paragraphs 3 and 19-20: the writing habits of the recipients are obtained through analysis of previous messages sent by the recipients);
obtaining second data pertaining to the third user (Barsness fig. 1 and paragraphs 3 and 19-20: the writing habits of the recipients are obtained through analysis of previous messages sent by the recipients);
identifying a content of the message being prepared by the first user (Barsness fig. 1 and paragraphs 3 and 18: the content of the composed message is analyzed using natural language processing);
analyzing the content relative to the first data and the second data (Barsness fig. 1 and paragraphs 3 and 21: the writing style of the composed message is compared against the writing habits of the recipients);
determining, based on the analyzing, that the content departs from a preference or an expectation of the second user, the third user, or a combination thereof (Barsness fig. 1 and paragraphs 3, 21 and 45: the writing style of the composed message is compared against the writing habits of the recipients and a significant difference is determined when the difference exceeds a pre-determined threshold);
based on the determining, providing the first user with a recommendation (Barsness fig. 1 and paragraphs 3, 21 and 24: a suggested modification to the composed message, i.e., guidance, is presented to the user when a significant difference is identified)”.
However, while Barsness discloses that the suggested modification to the content of the message is presented to the composer (Barsness paragraph 24), Barsness does not explicitly disclose “based on the providing, modifying the content in accordance with the recommendation, resulting in modified content; and
transmitting the message with the modified content in a second application that is different from the first application to a first communication device of the second user and a second communication device of the third user.”
In the same field of endeavor, Kemp discloses “based on the providing, modifying the content in accordance with the guidance, resulting in modified content (Kemp paragraphs 119, 121 and 131: proposed content 510 is modified based on the recommended content edits 520); and
transmitting the message with the modified content... to a first communication device of the second user and a second communication device of the third user (Kemp paragraphs 43, 121, 124 and 131: the modified content is transmitted to the target recipients).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the machine-readable medium of Barsness to modify the content of the composed message based on the suggested modification as taught by Kemp. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine modifying the content of the composed message based on the suggested modification to increase positive responses from the message recipients (Kemp paragraph 4).
However, while Barsness discloses presenting a suggested modification of the content while the message is being composed in a first application, e.g., an email application (Barsness paragraphs 17 and 24), the combination of Barsness and Kemp does not explicitly disclose “transmitting the message with the modified content in a second application that is different from the first application to a first communication device of the second user and a second communication device of the third user.”
In the same field of endeavor, Daga discloses “transmitting the message with the modified content in a second application that is different from the first application to a first communication device of the second user and a second communication device of the third user (Daga figs. 1-2 and paragraphs 4-6, 57-61, 96, 104, 124 and 127-129: a message, which may have modified content, is transmitted using a second messaging application that is different from the messaging application in which the original content was composed).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the machine-readable medium of Barsness, as modified by Kemp, to transmit the modified message using a second application that is different from the messaging application in which the original content was composed as taught by Daga. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine transmitting the message with the modified content using a second application that is different from the messaging application in which the original content was composed to ensure delivery of the message using the correct application (Daga paragraph 6).
Regarding Claim 16, the combination of Barsness, Kemp and Daga discloses all of the limitations of Claim 15.
Additionally, Kemp discloses “obtaining a first indication of a reaction of the second user to the modified content (Kemp paragraphs 120-121 and 132: feedback on the modified content, i.e., a reaction, is received from the recipients of the modified content); and
obtaining a second indication of a reaction of the third user to the modified content (Kemp paragraphs 120-121 and 132: feedback on the modified content, i.e., a reaction, is received from the recipients of the modified content).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the machine-readable medium of Barsness to receive feedback on the content from the recipient of the modified message as taught by Kemp. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine receiving feedback on the content from the recipient of the modified message to update the writing preferences of the recipient that are utilized to suggest the modifications of the message content (Kemp paragraphs 120-121).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Barsness, Kemp and Daga in view of Pandey et al., Pub. No. US 2023/0421518 A1, hereby “Pandey”.
Regarding Claim 14, the combination of Barsness, Kemp and Daga discloses all of the limitations of Claim 13.
However, while Barsness suggests that the messaging applications available to the composer may include email, SMS and social messaging applications (Barsness paragraphs 17 and 19) and Daga discloses that the messaging applications available to the sending user may include a text messaging, instant messaging, electronic message board, email and social media applications (Daga paragraphs 40, 41, 46 and 96), the combination of Barsness, Kemp and Daga does not explicitly disclose “wherein the second application facilitates a playing of a video game, and wherein the first application facilitates a videoconference.”
In the same field of endeavor, Pandey discloses wherein the messaging applications available to the sender for composing a message include video game and conferencing applications (Pandey fig. 2 and paragraphs 34-35 and 45-46: Pandey paragraphs 45 and 117: messaging applications in which the message may be composed include Microsoft Teams™ and Zoom™, i.e., videoconferencing applications, and PlayStation™ and Xbox™, i.e., gaming applications).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the method of Barsness, as modified by Kemp and Daga, to utilize messaging functionality within videoconference and video game applications as taught by Pandey because doing so constitutes a simple substitution of one known element (videoconference application and a video game application) for another (a first application and a second application) to obtain predictable and desirable results (sending of a message initially composed within the videoconference application using the video game application). See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (U.S. 2007).
Claims 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Barsness, Kemp and Daga in view of Aravkin.
Regarding Claim 17, the combination of Barsness, Kemp and Daga discloses all of the limitations of Claim 16.
However, while Barsness discloses that the content of the composed message can be analyzed based on reactions to previous messages sent by the composer (Barsness paragraphs 16 and 38), and Kemp discloses that the target recipient provides feedback on the modified content (Kemp paragraphs 120 and 132), the combination of Barsness, Kemp and Daga does not explicitly disclose “providing the first indication to a first user equipment associated with the first user.”
In the same field of endeavor, Aravkin discloses providing an indication of the total disposition score, i.e., an indication of the reaction, of a recipient to a communication to the sender of (Aravkin figs. 1 and 11 and paragraphs 34, 42 and 119: the total disposition score, i.e., an indication of the disposition of the recipient perceiving the message, is provided to a data processing system, such as a client 114 associated with a sender of the electronic communication, i.e., a first user equipment associated with the first user).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the machine-readable medium of Barsness, as modified by Kemp and Daga, to provide an indication of the recipient’s feedback on the modified content to the composer of the message as taught by Aravkin because doing so constitutes applying a known technique (sending an indication of the recipient’s reaction to a message to the message sender) to known devices and/or methods (a computer system configured to modify the content of a composed message) ready for improvement to yield predictable and desirable results (awareness by the composer of the recipient reaction to the message). See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (U.S. 2007).
Regarding Claim 18, the combination of Barsness, Kemp, Daga and Aravkin discloses all of the limitations of Claim 17.
Additionally, Aravkin discloses that the disposition, i.e., a reaction, of recipients to a message may be captured using peripheral devices associated with the client device of the recipient (Aravkin fig. 1 and 11 and paragraphs 30-34, 42 and 114: the disposition of users perceiving the content of a message is determined from biometric data captured using video cameras and microphones of the client devices of the message recipients, e.g., biometric measuring devices 116 of client 110), and further discloses providing an indication of the disposition of the message recipient to a client device associated with another user (Aravkin figs. 1 and 11 and paragraphs 34, 42 and 119: the total disposition score, i.e., an indication of the disposition of the recipient perceiving the message, is provided to a data processing system, such as a client 114 associated with a sender of the electronic communication – while not explicitly stated, the language “such as client 114” recited in paragraph 119 suggests that the total disposition score can be provided to any user device, i.e., second user equipment associated with a fourth user).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the machine-readable medium of Barsness, as modified by Kemp and Daga, to obtain feedback on the modified content using cameras and microphones of the recipients’ devices as taught by Aravkin because doing so constitutes applying a known technique (using biometric measuring devices of a recipient device to capture a recipient’s reaction to content) to known devices and/or methods (a computer system configured to modify the content of a composed message) ready for improvement to yield predictable and desirable results (awareness by the composer of the recipient reaction to the message). See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (U.S. 2007).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Barsness and Kemp in view of Panattoni et al., Pub. No. US 2019/0052471 A1, hereby “Panattoni”.
Regarding Claim 14, the combination of Barsness and Kemp discloses all of the limitations of Claim 13.
However, while Barsness suggests monitoring messages composed within email, SMS and social messaging applications (Barsness paragraphs 17 and 19), the combination of Barsness and Kemp does not explicitly disclose “wherein the content includes a criticism of the third user, the fourth user, or a combination thereof, as part of a video game.”
In the same field of endeavor, Panattoni discloses monitoring voice-based and text-based chats within a multiuser virtual environment, such as a video game, to identify and remove insults or other abusive language directed towards other participants, i.e., criticism of another user (Panattoni paragraphs 4, 20, 22, 25, 33, 37 and 79-81: “At block 408, communications data 142 associated with the multiuser virtual environment 104 is monitored to identify an instance of the predetermined toxic behavior. For example, an instance of an expletive and/or insult may be identified within the communications data 142.”)”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the method of Barsness, as modified by Kemp, to monitor a text-based chat within a multiuser virtual environment for insults and other abusive language directed at other participants as taught by Panattoni because doing so constitutes a simple substitution of one known element (monitoring content of a message composed in a video game chat for insults directed towards another participant) for another (monitoring content of a message composed in an email application for differences in writing style) to obtain predictable and desirable results (suggesting modifications to replace insulting language in a video game chat). See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (U.S. 2007).
Conclusion
A shortened statutory period for reply to this action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. An extension of time may be obtained under 37 CFR 1.136(a). However, in no event, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM C MCBETH whose telephone number is (571)270-0495. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 8:00AM - 4:30PM ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Vivek Srivastava can be reached on 571-272-7304. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/WILLIAM C MCBETH/Examiner, Art Unit 2449