Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Detailed Action
In amendments dated 2/23/26, Applicant amended claims 23-41, canceled no claims, and added new claim 42. Claims 23-42 are presented for examination.
Objections
Claims 23 and 37 are objected to because of the following informality: the tenth limitation in claim 23 and eighth limitation in claim 37 each recites “based at least in part on the first application being accessed,” but the first application is accessed twice before this point, in the second limitation and in the ninth limitation, so the antecedent basis for this reference in the eighth limitation is unclear.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 23-32 and 37-42 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. The seventh limitation in independent claims 23 and the ninth limitation in claim 37 each recites “storing, in the profile, a learned correlation between the performance of the action in relation to the second application when the first application was being accessed.” A correlation requires two entities being correlated and this limitation recites that the correlation is between the performance of the action in relation to the second application but does not recite the second entity that is correlated with said performance of the action in relation to the second application. Thus a person of ordinary skill in the art would not know what the performance of the action in relation to the second application is correlated to and the scope of these claims are indefinite. Examiner notes the fifth limitation of independent claim 34 recites “a learned correlation between the plurality of actions and the simultaneous access of the first application and the second application is stored in the profile.” Claims 24-32 and 38-42 are also rejected because they depend directly or indirectly on claims 23 or 37 but do not recite subject matter that remedies the above deficiency in claims 23 and 37.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 23-32 and 33-42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to mental processes without significantly more. Independent claims 23 and 37 each recites based at least in part on the first user input, accessing, in relation to the profile, a first application at a first time; simultaneously accessing, in relation to the profile, the second application while the first application continues to be accessed; and performing, in relation to the profile, an action in relation to the second application while simultaneously continuing to access the first application. Accessing an application and performing an action in relation to an application are each mental processes accomplishable in the human mind or on paper. Each claim recites additional elements of receiving a first user input requesting to access a first application, wherein the first user input is received from a user of a device, and wherein the user is associated with a profile, an input step and insignificant extra-solution activity; while accessing the first application in relation to the profile, receiving a second user input requesting to access a second application, wherein the second user input is received from the user of the device, an input step and insignificant extra-solution activity; storing, in the profile, a learned correlation between the performance of the action in relation to the second application when the first application was being accessed, which is insignificant extra-solution activity; receiving third user input requesting to access the first application at a second time subsequent to the first time, wherein the third user input is associated with the user of the device, an input step and insignificant extra-solution activity; based at least in part on the first application being accessed, retrieving from the profile the stored learned correlation, which is insignificant extra-solution activity; and based at least in part on retrieving the stored learned correlation, automatically providing, for display at the device, in relation to the profile and while the first application is being accessed, one or more selectable user interface elements associated with the action, wherein the one or more selectable user interface elements are based at least in part on data, associated with the profile, from the second application, which is an output step and insignificant extra-solution activity. Claim 37 recites memory and processing circuitry, which are both generic components of a computer. Examiner notes specification paragraph 0035 discusses benefits of the invention but Examiner did not find anywhere in the specification that discussed problems or drawbacks in the technology or that discussed how said problems or drawbacks are addressed by the invention. Per Applicant’s Remarks page 11, “as discussed at paragraphs [0139]-[0140] of Applicant's specification, the features of Applicant's claims helps provide a technological solution to the technological problem of "disconnected pockets of personalization associated with only one particular dataspace." Examiner notes the claims do not recite details that show how the invention specifically improves upon said technological problem such as what exactly the correlation is between the first and second applications, how said correlation is determined, or how the invention uses said correlation to provide selectable user interface elements when the first application is accessed based in part on the third input. Thus, the claim steps do not recite a particular improvement in any technology or function of a computer per MPEP 2106.04(d) and do not recite any unconventional steps in the invention per MPEP 2106.05(a). Therefore, the recited mental processes are not integrated into a practical application. Taking the claims as a whole, the input steps and output step are recited broadly and amount to sending and receiving data across a network per specification paragraph 0143 and figure 10 1004, which are routine and conventional activities per the list of such activities in MPEP 2106.05(d) part II. The storing and retrieving steps are also routine and conventional activities per the list of such activities in MPEP 2106.05(d) part II. The memory and processing circuitry are both still generic components of a computer. Thus the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited mental processes.
Independent claim 34 recites accessing, in relation to a profile, a first application at a second time, at the second time, based at least in part on retrieving the stored learned correlation, automatically selecting one or more actions from the plurality of actions to provide at the display one or more options to the user; and based at least in part on receiving selection of an option of the one or more options, performing an action corresponding to the selected option. Accessing an application and performing an action are both mental processes accomplishable in the human mind or on paper, and selecting one or more actions is evaluating and a mental process. Examiner notes that “wherein: the profile indicates that a user previously simultaneously accessed the first application and a second application at a first time, and that a plurality of actions were performed in at least one of the first application or the second application at the first time; the first application was accessed at the first time based at least in part on receiving a first user input requesting to access the first application, the first user input being received from a user of a device, and the user being associated with the profile; the second application was accessed at the first time based at least in part on receiving a second user input requesting to access the second application, the second user input being received from the user of the device; and a learned correlation between the plurality of actions and the simultaneous access of the first application and the second application is stored in the profile;” are each recited as having occurred prior to the limitations in the invention and not as steps in the claimed invention. Claim 34 recites no additional elements. Examiner notes the discussions in specification paragraphs 0035 and 0139-0140 above and that, while the limitations recite a learned correlation is stored previously in a profile, the claims do not recite details that show how the invention specifically improves upon said technological problem in 0139-0140 such as what exactly the correlation is between the first and second applications, how said correlation is determined, or how the invention uses said correlation to provide selectable user interface elements when the first application is accessed based in part on the third input. Thus, the claim steps do not recite a particular improvement in any technology or function of a computer per MPEP 2106.04(d) and do not recite any unconventional steps in the invention per MPEP 2106.05(a). Therefore, the recited mental processes are not integrated into a practical application. Taking the claims as a whole, there are not additional elements that might amount to significantly more than the mental processes per MPEP 21-6.05(a). Thus the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited mental processes.
Claims 24 and 38 each recites wherein the one or more selectable user interface elements comprise one or more search results arranged based at least in part on the action that was previously performed, and comprising data is a mental process accomplishable in the human mind or on paper. Claims 25 and 39 each recites wherein the first application facilitates a communication session between the user of the profile and another entity, and the second application is simultaneously accessed while the communication session is ongoing, and a communication session and accessing data are both recited broadly and amount to sending and receiving data across a network per specification paragraph 0143 and figure 10 1004, which is routine and conventional activity per the list of such activities in MPEP 2106.05(d) part II. Claims 26 and 40 each recites wherein the second application simultaneously accessed while the communication session is ongoing is a calendar or email application, and performing the action in relation to the calendar or email application while simultaneously accessing the communication session of the first application comprises receiving user input to access data from the calendar or email application that relates to the ongoing communication session, and accessing an application is recited broadly and amounts to receiving data across a network per specification paragraph 0143 and figure 10 1004, which is routine and conventional activity per the list of such activities in MPEP 2106.05(d) part II, while performing an action recited broadly and a mental process accomplishable in the human mind or on paper.
Claims 27 and 41 each recites wherein the second application simultaneously accessed while the communication session is ongoing is a calendar or email dataspace, and providing for display the one or more selectable user interface elements is based at least in part on automatically accessing data from the calendar or email application that relates to the ongoing communication session, and accessing an application and displaying interface elements are each recited broadly and amount to sending and receiving data across a network per specification paragraph 0143 and figure 10 1004, which are routine and conventional activities per the list of such activities in MPEP 2106.05(d) part II. Claim 28 recites wherein storing the learned correlation is based at least in part on determining that the action was previously performed at least a threshold number of times, and determining an action was performed a threshold number of times is evaluating and a mental process. Claim 29 recites wherein storing the learned correlation is based at least in part on determining that an average amount of times that the action was previously performed while the first application and the second application are simultaneously being accessed exceeds a threshold, and determining an average amount of times that the action was previously performed exceeds a threshold is evaluating and a mental process. Claim 30 recites wherein storing the learned correlation is based at least in part on determining that an amount of time spent by a user of the profile in relation to the action exceeds a threshold, and determining an amount of time exceeds a threshold is evaluating and a mental process.
Claim 31 recites wherein storing the learned correlation is based at least in part on is performed at a client device associated with the profile, and storing the learned correlation at a client device is storing data which is a routine and conventional activity per the list of such activities in MPEP 2106.05(d) part II. Claim 32 recites generating a first signature associated with the profile based at least in part on engagement history of the user associated with the profile with a plurality of applications, and generating a signature is recited broadly and a mental process accomplishable in the human mind or on paper; identifying a collaborative filtering cluster comprising a plurality of other profiles having similar signatures to the first signature, and identifying data is evaluating and a mental process; and adding the profile to the collaborative filtering cluster, and adding data is a mental process accomplishable in the human mind or on paper, wherein the providing for display, in relation to the profile, the one or more selectable user interface elements associated with the action is further performed based at least in part on at least one engagement history of a plurality of engagement histories of the plurality of other profiles of the collaborative filtering cluster, and providing user interface elements for display is recited broadly and amounts to sending data across a network per specification paragraph 0143 and figure 10 1004, which is routine and conventional activity per the list of such activities in MPEP 2106.05(d) part II.
Claim 35 recites wherein automatically selecting the one or more actions from the plurality of actions is based at least in part on determining that the one or more actions were performed at least a threshold number of times at the first time, and selecting actions is evaluating and a mental process. Claim 36 recites wherein automatically selecting the one or more actions from the plurality of actions to provide the one or more options to the user is further performed based at least in part on determining that the first application and the second application are being accessed at the second time in relation to the user profile, and selecting actions is evaluating and a mental process. Claim 42 recites wherein a functionality performed by the first application differs from a functionality performed by the second application, and each of the first application and the second application provide respective user interfaces for display at the device, and performing functionality is recited broadly and a mental process accomplishable in the human mind or on paper while providing user interfaces for display are recited broadly and amount to receiving data across a network per specification paragraph 0143 and figure 10 1004, which are routine and conventional activities per the list of such activities in MPEP 2106.05(d) part II.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(e) the invention was described in (1) an application for patent, published under section 122(b), by another filed in the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent or (2) a patent granted on an application for patent by another filed in the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent, except that an international application filed under the treaty defined in section 351(a) shall have the effects for purposes of this subsection of an application filed in the United States only if the international application designated the United States and was published under Article 21(2) of such treaty in the English language.
Claims 23, 34, and 37 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being anticipated by Blinn et al (US 20100042735), hereafter Blinn.
With respect to claims 23 and 37, Blinn teaches:
receiving a first user input requesting to access a first application, wherein the first user input is received from a user of a device, and wherein the user is associated with a profile (paragraph 0019 receive request to access a first application (service), user is associated with a network (client stores data in response to access));
based at least in part on the first user input, accessing, in relation to the profile, a first application at a first time (paragraph 0019 user accesses first application/service);
while accessing the first application in relation to the profile, receiving a second user input requesting to access a second application, wherein the second user input is received from the user of the device (paragraph 0019 receiving request to access second application/service);
based at least in part on the second user input:
simultaneously accessing, in relation to the profile, the second application while the first application continues to be accessed (paragraph 0019 allow user access to second application/service based on stored data (policy group)); and
performing, in relation to the profile, an action in relation to the second application while simultaneously continuing to access the first application (paragraph 0021 provide second service to user);
storing, in the profile, a learned correlation between the performance of the action in relation to the second application when the first application was being accessed (paragraph 0021 store information on first application/service and second application/service associated with policy group);
receiving third user input requesting to access the first application at a second time subsequent to the first time, wherein the third user input is associated with the user of the device (paragraph 0016 user can log into first application/service later);
accessing, in relation to the profile and based at least in part on the third user input, the first application (paragraph 0016 user already authenticated for later login into first application/service);
based at least in part on the first application being accessed, retrieving from the profile the stored learned correlation (paragraph 0016 retrieving profile data for access to first application put there from earlier login into first application/service and second application/service); and
based at least in part on retrieving the stored learned correlation, automatically providing, for display at the device, in relation to the profile and while the first application is being accessed, one or more selectable user interface elements associated with the action, wherein the one or more selectable user interface elements are based at least in part on data, associated with the profile, from the second application (paragraph 0016 providing selectable elements associated with action based on user being already authenticated).
With respect to claim 37, Blinn teaches memory configured to store a profile (paragraph 0094 figure 6 memory 74) and processing circuitry (paragraph 0094 figure 6 processor 72).
With respect to claim 34, Blinn teaches:
accessing, in relation to a profile, a first application at a second time (paragraph 0016 accessing first application/service later/at a second time), wherein:
the profile indicates that a user previously simultaneously accessed the first application and a second application at a first time, and that a plurality of actions were performed in at least one of the first application or the second application at the first time (paragraph 0019 user policy group information would indicate user accessed first application/service and second application/service);
the first application was accessed at the first time based at least in part on receiving a first user input requesting to access the first application, the first user input being received from a user of a device, and the user being associated with the profile (paragraph 0019 user accessed first application/service after input requesting access, user associated with policy group information);
the second application was accessed at the first time based at least in part on receiving a second user input requesting to access the second application, the second user input being received from the user of the device paragraph 0019 user accessed second application/service after input requesting access, user associated with policy group information); and
a learned correlation between the plurality of actions and the simultaneous access of the first application and the second application is stored in the profile (paragraph 0019 data stored for policy group for user accessing first application/service and second application/service);
at the second time, based at least in part on retrieving the stored learned correlation, automatically selecting one or more actions from the plurality of actions to provide at the display one or more options to the user (paragraph 0016 providing selectable elements associated with action based on user being already authenticated); and
based at least in part on receiving selection of an option of the one or more options, performing an action corresponding to the selected option (paragraph 0016 providing selectable elements associated with action based on user being already authenticated).
Responses to Applicant’s Remarks
Regarding objections to the disclosure for citing network component as 1002 instead of 1004 in paragraph 0143, in view of Applicant submitting a corrected paragraph 0143, this objection is withdrawn. Regarding objections to claims 25 and 39 for reciting unclear language “and the second dataspace is simultaneously accessed while the is ongoing,” in view of amendments reciting “and the second application is simultaneously accessed while the communication session is ongoing,” these objections are withdrawn. Regarding rejections to claims 23-41 under 35 U.S.C. 101 for reciting mental processes without significantly more, Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are not persuasive. On pages 11-12 of his Remarks Applicant asserts the human mind cannot receive user inputs or store a learned correlation, and Examiner agrees and identifies these steps as additional elements in the rejections above. Applicant also asserts the human mind cannot access applications based on user inputs or perform actions in said accessed applications and Examiner disagrees since these steps are recited broadly and the BRI of these steps indicates they may be mental processes accomplishable in the human mind or on paper as noted in the rejections above. Also as noted in the rejections above, Applicant noted the specification paragraphs 0139-0140 discussed how the invention provides an improvement over the problem of "disconnected pockets of personalization associated with only one particular dataspace." Examiner disagrees as the claims still lack details on how the invention provides such improvements. In the rejections above Examiner notes examples of such as what exactly the correlation is between the first and second applications, how said correlation is determined, or how the invention uses said correlation to provide selectable user interface elements when the first application is accessed based in part on the third input. Applicant excerpted paragraph 0077 from the printed specification and Examiner also found details in paragraphs 0078-0081, 0082, and 0137-0151 discussing figures 10-12.
Regarding rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 of claims 23-25, 28-31, and 33-39 by Horvitz and rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 of claims 26-27, 31, and 40-41 by Horvitz in view of Dumais, Applicant’s amendments overcome Horvitz’ teachings. Examiner conducted another search of the prior art and found Blinn, which he believes teaches independent claims 23, 34, and 37 above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRUCE M MOSER whose telephone number is (571)270-1718. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9a-5p.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Boris Gorney can be reached at 571 270-5626. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BRUCE M MOSER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2154 3/21/26