DETAILED ACTION
The amendment to Application Ser. No. 18/971,005 filed on June 2, 2026, has been entered. Claims 1, 15, 19 and 20 are currently amended. Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 19 and 20 are withdrawn from consideration based on election by original presentation. Claims 1-18 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.
Election/Restrictions
Currently amended Claims 19 and 20 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons:
I. Claims 1-18, drawn to a device, and a non-transitory machine-readable medium comprising instructions, respectively, implementing a process comprising obtaining first data pertaining to the second user..., obtaining second data pertaining to the third user..., identifying a content of the message being prepared by the first user, analyzing the content based on the first data, determining, based on the analyzing, that the content departs from a preference or an expectation of the second user..., based on the determining, providing the first user with guidance for modifying the content..., based on the providing, modifying the content in accordance with the guidance, resulting in modified content, and transmitting the message with the modified content, classified in H04L 51/063;
II. Claims 19-20, drawn to a method comprising determining, by the processing system, that the user has started using a second application that allows messages to be prepared and sent, thereby producing a second application usage determination, determining, by the processing system, that the user started using the second application within a threshold time in which the message was sent by the first application, thereby producing a time window determination, in response to the second application usage determination and the time window determination: obtaining, by the processing system, rules or norms for use of the second application to prepare and send messages, analyzing, by the processing system, the message based on the rules or norms, determining, by the processing system and based on the analyzing, that the content departs from the rules and norms, thereby producing a departure determination, preparing, by the processing system and based on the departure determination, a warning that the user should conform to the rules and norms of the second application, and presenting, by the processing system, the warning, classified in H04L 51/212.
Inventions I and II are related as subcombinations disclosed as usable together in a single combination. The subcombinations are distinct if they do not overlap in scope and are not obvious variants, and if it is shown that at least one subcombination is separately usable. In the instant case, Inventions I and II do not overlap in scope as Invention I does not require at least the features determining, by the processing system, that the user has started using a second application that allows messages to be prepared and sent, thereby producing a second application usage determination, determining, by the processing system, that the user started using the second application within a threshold time in which the message was sent by the first application, thereby producing a time window determination, in response to the second application usage determination and the time window determination: obtaining, by the processing system, rules or norms for use of the second application to prepare and send messages, analyzing, by the processing system, the message based on the rules or norms, determining, by the processing system and based on the analyzing, that the content departs from the rules and norms, thereby producing a departure determination, preparing, by the processing system and based on the departure determination, a warning that the user should conform to the rules and norms of the second application, and presenting, by the processing system, the warning as required by Invention II, Inventions I and II are not obvious variants, and Invention I has a separate utility of suggesting modifications to a message based on learned preferences of the recipient. See MPEP § 806.05(d).
The examiner has required restriction between subcombinations usable together. Where applicant elects a subcombination and claims thereto are subsequently found allowable, any claim(s) depending from or otherwise requiring all the limitations of the allowable subcombination will be examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. See MPEP § 821.04(a). Applicant is advised that if any claim presented in a continuation or divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification (see Classification set forth above);
the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter;
the inventions require a different field of search (for example, searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries); and
the prior art applicable to one invention would not likely be applicable to another invention.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, Claims 19 and 20 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Response to Arguments
The arguments with respect to the rejection of Claims 1-18 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered by the Examiner.
Specifically with regards to the rejection of Claim 1 and its dependents, on pages 8-9 of the response filed July 22, 2026, Applicant argues, “Further, the prior art does not teach or suggest the multi-recipient recommendation constraint recited in claim 1. In Barsness, when multiple recipients are involved, the disclosure contemplates either applying an average habit/preference to the set or creating separate modified versions for different recipients or groups, but Barsness does not describe generating guidance that is expressly directed to reducing departure for one recipient while ensuring that the same guidance does not increase departure for another recipient beyond a threshold. See, e.g., Barsness ¶¶ [0045]-[0046] (set of recipients; average writing habit; separate modifications per recipient/group). Similarly, Kemp's group/audience discussion is oriented to segmenting audiences and selecting content variants, but does not teach a recommendation constrained to avoid increasing misalignment for a third user beyond a threshold while reducing misalignment for a second user beyond its own threshold. See, e.g., Kemp ¶¶ [0116]-[0118], [0127]-[0131].”
For the reasons set forth in the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) set forth below, the Examiner finds that the limitations, “determining, based on the analyzing, that the content departs from a preference or an expectation of the second user in an amount greater than a second user preference or expectation threshold,” and “based on the determining, providing the first user with guidance for modifying the content, wherein the guidance is directed to reducing the content departure from the preference or expectation of the second user without increasing the content departure from a preference or an expectation, deter of the third user, determined based on an analysis using the second data, above a third user preference or expectation threshold” argued by Applicant as providing non-obviousness over the prior art of record does not have sufficient written description support in the as-filed specification.
Never-the-less, in the interest of compact prosecution, new grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103, necessitated by the amendment, are set forth in this Office Action.
The amendment to Claims 1 and 15 has overcome the nonstatutory double patenting rejection of Claims 1, 2 and 5-15 set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed March 3, 2026. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection of Claims 1, 2, and 5-15 is hereby withdrawn.
Examiner’s Note
Applicant is respectfully reminded that “[a] complete response to a nonstatutory double patenting rejection (also called an ‘obviousness-type’ or ODP rejection) is either a reply by applicant showing that the claims subject to the rejection are patentably distinct from the reference claims or the filing of a terminal disclaimer in accordance with 37 CFR 1.321 in the pending application(s) with a reply to the Office action (see MPEP § 1490 for a discussion of terminal disclaimers). Such a response is required even when the nonstatutory double patenting rejection is provisional.” See MPEP § 804 I B 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
Claims 1-14 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “based on the determining, providing the first user with guidance for modifying the content, wherein the guidance is directed to reducing the content departure from the preference or expectation of the second user without increasing the content departure from a preference or an expectation, deter of the third user, determined based on an analysis using the second data, above a third user preference or expectation threshold” in lines 24-28. Neither the word “deter”, nor variants thereof, is recited in the specification, and the word “deter” does not have a special definition recognized in the art. Therefore, the word is given its ordinary and customary meaning, which is: to turn aside, discourage, or prevent from acting; inhibit. In the context of the remainder of the limitation, the meaning of “deter of the third user” is unclear, rendering the claim indefinite.
Dependent Claims 2-14 are rejected for the reasons presented above with respect to rejected Claim 1 in view of their dependence thereon.
For examination purposes, “a preference or an expectation, deter of the third user” is interpreted as “a preference or an expectation of the third user” based on an assumption that “, deter” is an oversight/typo.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “determining, based on the analyzing, that the content departs from a preference or an expectation of the second user in an amount greater than a second user preference or expectation threshold” in lines 21-23 and the limitation “based on the determining, providing the first user with guidance for modifying the content, wherein the guidance is directed to reducing the content departure from the preference or expectation of the second user without increasing the content departure from a preference or an expectation, deter of the third user, determined based on an analysis using the second data, above a third user preference or expectation threshold” in lines 24-28, respectively. Paragraph [00019] of the specification states, in part:
“The system 100 can facilitate in whole or in part identifying a first message composed by a first user on a first user equipment that is directed to a second user of a second user equipment, identifying a preference of the second user, determining that a first content of the first message composed by the first user departs from the preference of the second user in an amount greater than a threshold, and providing, based on the determining, guidance to the first user for modifying the first content to generate second content that more closely aligns to the preference of the second user (emphasis added).”
Additionally, paragraph [0048] of the specification states, in part:
“In some embodiments, one or more thresholds may be used to determine whether, and to what extent, the first user should be provided with guidance. For example, if the content of the message being prepared by the first user is generally aligned with the preferences or expectations of the targeted recipient user(s), it might not be worth it to annoy the first user for relatively minor departures/differences. On the other hand, if the content of the message being prepared by the first user is (grossly) misaligned with the preferences or expectations of the targeted recipient user(s), the first user may be required to take additional steps before being allowed/permitted to send the message (in order to protect the first user) (emphasis added).”
While the specification discloses that “one or more thresholds may be used to determine whether, and to what extent, the first user should be provided with guidance” and further discloses providing guidance for modifying the content of the message in response to determining that “the content of the message being prepared by the first user is (grossly) misaligned with the preferences or expectations of the targeted recipient user(s)”, there is nothing in the disclosure that suggests that each recipient has a “preference or expectation threshold”, or that the guidance for modifying the content “is directed to reducing the content departure from the preference or expectation of the second user without increasing the content departure from a preference or an expectation of the third user... above a third user preference or expectation threshold” as claimed.
Dependent Claims 2-14 are rejected for the reasons presented above with respect to rejected Claim 1 in view of their dependence thereon.
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 1-9 and 15 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 Manolescu et al., Pub. No. US 2010/0223341 A1, hereby “Manolescu”.
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 (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 in an amount greater than a second user preference or expectation 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 modifying the content of the composed message based on the comparison of the writing style of the composed message against the writing habits of the recipients, wherein the writing habits of the recipients are obtained through analysis of previous messages sent by the recipients (Barsness paragraphs 18-21) and further discloses that the suggested modification to the content of the message is presented to the composer (Barsness paragraph 24), Barsness does not explicitly disclose “obtaining first data pertaining to the second user, wherein the first data comprises one or more of a first data type of response, a first data response likelihood, a first data response delay, or a combination thereof, based on one or more of the following characteristics of one or more messages previously received by the second user: a first data type of content, a first data triggering phrase, a first data time window of delivery, a first data message length, a first data medium of communication, or a combination thereof (emphasis added);
obtaining second data pertaining to the third user, wherein the second data comprises one or more of a second data type of response, a second data response likelihood, a second data response delay, or a combination thereof, based on one or more of the following characteristics of one or more messages previously received by the third user: a second data type of content, a second data triggering phrase, a second data time window of delivery, a second data message length, a second data medium of communication, or a combination thereof (emphasis added);” and
“based on the determining, providing the first user with guidance for modifying the content, wherein the guidance is directed to reducing the content departure from the preference or expectation of the second user without increasing the content departure from a preference or an expectation, deter of the third user, determined based on an analysis using the second data, above a third user preference or expectation threshold;
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, Manolescu discloses “obtaining first data pertaining to the second user, wherein the first data comprises one or more of a first data type of response, a first data response likelihood, a first data response delay, or a combination thereof, based on one or more of the following characteristics of one or more messages previously received by the second user: a first data type of content, a first data triggering phrase, a first data time window of delivery, a first data message length, a first data medium of communication, or a combination thereof (Manolescu figs. 1, 2 and 8 and paragraphs 34-39, 42 and 67: processor 110 obtains participant context of the recipients of message 106, i.e., a second user, wherein the context includes personal context, e.g., tasks the recipient is participating in, scheduled meetings, communication devices or aliases the recipient is logged onto, communication preferences or habits, as well as physical context, such as time, location, and status, wherein the participant context may indicate when the recipient is most likely to receive a message, receive the message in a timely fashion, or respond to the message);
obtaining second data pertaining to the third user, wherein the second data comprises one or more of a second data type of response, a second data response likelihood, a second data response delay, or a combination thereof, based on one or more of the following characteristics of one or more messages previously received by the third user: a second data type of content, a second data triggering phrase, a second data time window of delivery, a second data message length, a second data medium of communication, or a combination thereof (Manolescu figs. 1, 2 and 8 and paragraphs 34-39, 42 and 67: processor 110 obtains participant context for the recipients of message 106, i.e., a third user, wherein the context includes personal context, e.g., tasks the recipient is participating in, scheduled meetings, communication devices or aliases the recipient is logged onto, communication preferences or habits, as well as physical context, such as time, location, and status, wherein the participant context may indicate when the recipient is most likely to receive a message, receive the message in a timely fashion, or respond to the message);” and
“based on the determining, providing the first user with guidance for modifying the content, wherein the guidance is directed to reducing the content departure from the preference or expectation of the second user without increasing the content departure from a preference or an expectation, deter of the third user, determined based on an analysis using the second data... (Manolescu figs. 1, 2 and 8 and paragraphs 25, 31, 34, 37-39, 45-47 and 67: based on the differences in the message context and the participant context, customization component 108 generates one or more suggested modifications to the content, style, format or logistics of to make a single variation of the message 106 that is more suitable to the recipients – while not explicitly stated, optimizing the message to make the message more suitable for one recipient without making the message substantially less suitable for another recipient is inferred);
based on the providing, modifying the content in accordance with the guidance, resulting in modified content (Manolescu figs. 1, 2 and 8 and paragraphs 25, 31, 34, 37-39, 45-47 and 67: customization component 108 updates message 106 to include the suggested modifications); 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 (Manolescu figs. 1, 2 and 8 and paragraphs 25, 34 and 47: updated message 106 is transmitted to the recipients).”
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 to suggest modifications to the composed message based on a comparison of the message context and the participant context of the message recipients as taught by Manolescu because doing so constitutes a simple substitution of one known element (writing habits of the message recipients) for another (participant context of the message recipients) to obtain predictable and desirable results (modification of the message to be more suitable to the recipients). See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (U.S. 2007).
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Barsness and Manolescu 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 Manolescu 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 Manolescu 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 Manolescu 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 Manolescu 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 Manolescu 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 Manolescu discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1.
Additionally, Manolescu 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 (Manolescu paragraphs 25, 34, 47 and 67: the suggested modifications are presented to a user for review and applied to message 106 based on user input).”
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 to suggest modifications to the composed message based on a comparison of the message context and the participant context of the message recipients as taught by Manolescu for the reasons set forth in the rejection of Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Barsness and Manolescu discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1.
Additionally, Manolescu discloses “wherein the modified content omits at least a portion of the content (Manolescu paragraph 25, 38, 45 and 59: suggested modifications to message 106 may include modified content - while not explicitly stated, omission of at least a portion of the original message content is implied).”
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 to suggest modifications to the composed message based on a comparison of the message context and the participant context of the message recipients as taught by Manolescu for the reasons set forth in the rejection of Claim 1.
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 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 modifying the content of the composed message based on the comparison of the writing style of the composed message against the writing habits of the recipients, wherein the writing habits of the recipients are obtained through analysis of previous messages sent by the recipients (Barsness paragraphs 18-21) and further discloses that the suggested modification to the content of the message is presented to the composer (Barsness paragraph 24), Barsness does not explicitly disclose “obtaining first data pertaining to the second user, wherein the first data comprises one or more of a first data type of response, a first data response likelihood, a first data response delay, or a combination thereof, based on one or more of the following characteristics of one or more messages previously received by the second user: a first data type of content, a first data triggering phrase, a first data time window of delivery, a first data message length, a first data medium of communication, or a combination thereof (emphasis added);
obtaining second data pertaining to the third user, wherein the second data comprises one or more of a second data type of response, a second data response likelihood, a second data response delay, or a combination thereof, based on one or more of the following characteristics of one or more messages previously received by the third user: a second data type of content, a second data triggering phrase, a second data time window of delivery, a second data message length, a second data medium of communication, or a combination thereof (emphasis added);” and
“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, Manolescu discloses “obtaining first data pertaining to the second user, wherein the first data comprises one or more of a first data type of response, a first data response likelihood, a first data response delay, or a combination thereof, based on one or more of the following characteristics of one or more messages previously received by the second user: a first data type of content, a first data triggering phrase, a first data time window of delivery, a first data message length, a first data medium of communication, or a combination thereof (Manolescu figs. 1, 2 and 8 and paragraphs 34-39, 42 and 67: processor 110 obtains participant context of the recipients of message 106, i.e., a second user, wherein the context includes personal context, e.g., tasks the recipient is participating in, scheduled meetings, communication devices or aliases the recipient is logged onto, communication preferences or habits, as well as physical context, such as time, location, and status, wherein the participant context may indicate when the recipient is most likely to receive a message, receive the message in a timely fashion, or respond to the message);
obtaining second data pertaining to the third user, wherein the second data comprises one or more of a second data type of response, a second data response likelihood, a second data response delay, or a combination thereof, based on one or more of the following characteristics of one or more messages previously received by the third user: a second data type of content, a second data triggering phrase, a second data time window of delivery, a second data message length, a second data medium of communication, or a combination thereof (Manolescu figs. 1, 2 and 8 and paragraphs 34-39, 42 and 67: processor 110 obtains participant context for the recipients of message 106, i.e., a third user, wherein the context includes personal context, e.g., tasks the recipient is participating in, scheduled meetings, communication devices or aliases the recipient is logged onto, communication preferences or habits, as well as physical context, such as time, location, and status, wherein the participant context may indicate when the recipient is most likely to receive a message, receive the message in a timely fashion, or respond to the message);” and
“based on the providing, modifying the content in accordance with the recommendation, resulting in modified content (Manolescu figs. 1, 2 and 8 and paragraphs 25, 31, 34, 37-39, 45-47 and 67: customization component 108 updates message 106 to include the suggested modifications); 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 (Manolescu figs. 1, 2 and 8 and paragraphs 25-26, 32, 34, 39 and 47: updated message 106 is transmitted to the recipients using a different messaging platform or application than the messaging platform or application in which it was composed, e.g., as instant message (IM) instead of an email).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the instructions of the computer readable storage medium of Barsness to suggest modifications to the composed message based on a comparison of the message context and the participant context of the message recipients as taught by Manolescu because doing so constitutes a simple substitution of one known element (writing habits of the message recipients) for another (participant context of the message recipients) to obtain predictable and desirable results (modification of the message to be more suitable to the recipients). See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (U.S. 2007).
Claims 10, 11 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Barsness and Manolescu in view of Kemp et al., Pub. No. US 2021/0326528 A1, hereby “Kemp”.
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Barsness and Manolescu discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1.
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), the combination of Barsness and Manolescu does not explicitly disclose “obtaining a first reaction of the second user to the modified content, resulting in an identified reaction.”
In the same field of endeavor, 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, as modified by Manolescu, 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 participant context of the recipient that is utilized to suggest the modifications of the message (Kemp paragraphs 120-121).
18. Regarding Claim 11, the combination of Barsness, Manolescu 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, as modified by Manolescu, 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 16, the combination of Barsness and Manolescu discloses all of the limitations of Claim 15.
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), the combination of Barsness and Manolescu does not explicitly disclose “obtaining a first indication of a reaction of the second user to the modified content; and
obtaining a second indication of a reaction of the third user to the modified content.”
In the same field of endeavor, 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, as modified by Manolescu, 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 participant context of the recipient that is utilized to suggest the modifications of the message (Kemp paragraphs 120-121).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Barsness, Manolescu and Kemp in view of Aravkin et al., Pub. No. US 2016/0072756 A1, hereby “Aravkin”.
Regarding Claim 12, the combination of Barsness, Manolescu 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, Manolescu 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 Manolescu and 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).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Barsness and Manolescu in view of Daga et al., Pub. No. US 2022/0329556 A1, hereby “Daga”.
Regarding Claim 13, the combination of Barsness and Manolescu 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), the combination of Barsness and Manolescu 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 Manolescu, 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).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Barsness, Manolescu and Daga in view of Pandey et al., Pub. No. US 2023/0421518 A1, hereby “Pandey”.
Regarding Claim 14, the combination of Barsness, Manolescu 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, Manolescu 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 Manolescu 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, Manolescu and Kemp in view of Aravkin.
Regarding Claim 17, the combination of Barsness, Manolescu and Kemp 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, Manolescu and Kemp 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 Manolescu and 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).
Regarding Claim 18, the combination of Barsness, Manolescu, Kemp 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 Manolescu and Kemp, 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).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Chakra et al., Pub. No. US 2015/0286617 A1, discloses a method for adjusting text in a message wherein the text of a message is modified to include language directed to the recipient’s interest and/or personality trait.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final 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
Prosecution Insights