DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. This communication is in response to the Amendment filed on August 17, 2026, in which claim 1 has been amended, and claims 2-20 have been newly added. Accordingly, claims 1-20 are now pending for examination.
Status of Claims
3. Claims 1-20 are pending, all of which are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
7. Claims 1, 2, 7-10, 11, 12 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DeLuca et al. (United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2019/0082416 A1), hereinafter “DeLuca” in view of Smus et al. (United States Patent No. US 9,848,036 B1), hereinafter “Smus”.
Regarding claim 11, DeLuca discloses a system comprising: input/output circuitry (mobile phones (e.g., such as mobile devices 155 and 157 depicted in FIG. 1), which include input/output circuitry for receiving inputs) (DeLuca, FIG. 1, paragraph [0027]) configured to: receive a digital electronic notification at a first device, wherein the first device is one of a plurality of devices corresponding to a user account on which is installed an application corresponding to the digital electronic notification (wherein a user may have multiple devices associated with a single user account (e.g., AppleID account), and may receive notifications directed to that account. In particular, a marketer who uses a system like IBM Presence Insights or IBM Marketing Cloud may create and send notifications to select mobile devices. In the given example, the marketer may create location-based notifications by specifying a target region, beacon and/or geofence. When a mobile device enters or breaches the pre-set location-based target as detected by a suitable location sensing system, the system would look at the location of all user devices associated with the AppleID account of the device owner. The system would determine which device(s) to send the notification to. With reference to FIG. 2, at block 204, a target criterion is identified for a user who possesses a set of mobile devices operated by the user. That is, a target criterion (e.g., a target area of geofence set by a market who manages a shopping app driven by a computer such as computer 101 to access mobile devices such as the first mobile device 155 and/or the second mobile device 157) is established to dictate and allow computer 101 to control which notifications are sent to particular mobile devices. As further depicted in block 206, it is determined that a user has met at least one target criterion that triggers delivery of a message to one or more mobile devices from the set of mobile devices. That is, computer 101 determines that whenever some event occurs (e.g., new e-mail comes in, a phone call is placed, user enters a predetermined area, etc.), and that this event may be selectively handled by a particular mobile device, then a push notification is issued to the mobile device that is receiving the notification (and thus is experiencing the event)) (DeLuca, FIG. 2, paragraphs [0018] and [0060]-[0061]); and control circuitry (at least impliedly, mobile devices (e.g., such as mobile devices 155 and 157 - See again, FIG. 1) of the users will include control circuitry) (DeLuca, FIG. 1, paragraph [0027]) configured to: determine a plurality of current status parameters of each of the plurality of devices (wherein again, DeLuca teaches that the system would first do a lookup to determine the last known and/or current location of all of Bob’s devices, then determine that Bob’s wife’s phone and Bob’s tablet are at home (i.e., device location being one status parameter). The system may further determine that at least two of the computing devices of the user are within the threshold distance of a particular location; e.g., the Great Grocery. Moreover, the system may determine which of the at least two of the computing devices is to receive the message based on a determined preference of the user (i.e., determined preference being another status parameter). The determined preference of the user may be based on frequency of device usage, which may be stored by the system in an historical database) (DeLuca, paragraphs [0021]-[0022]); select a particular device of the plurality of devices to receive the digital electronic notification (again, invention presents a method and system by which criteria are used to determine which mobile device to send a given notification to. The selection criteria include, but are not limited to: (1) determining where a mobile device is actively being used or is being used within a predetermined area; (2) determining if a mobile device is being used by the intended user; and (3) determining if the content of the notification is suitable for a given mobile device) (DeLuca, paragraph [0033]); and in response to the selecting the particular device, transmit the digital electronic notification to the particular device (again, the notification is sent to the selected device) (DeLuca, paragraphs [0032] and [0033]). DeLuca does not explicitly disclose wherein the plurality of the current status parameters comprise a proximity of the each device of the plurality of devices to the first device; and compute, based on the plurality of current status parameters, a priority score for each of the plurality of devices, wherein the priority score for the each device of the plurality of devices is based at least in part on the proximity of the each device of the plurality of devices to the first device; and based, at least in part, on the priority score for the each device of the plurality of devices, select a particular device of the plurality of devices to receive the digital electronic notification. However in an analogous art, Smus discloses a plurality of current status parameters comprise a proximity of the each device of a plurality of devices to a first device (wherein with reference to FIG. 6, Smus teaches a process for causing an action to be performed on a user device. In particular, process 600 can begin by detecting nearby user devices at 602. At 604, process 600 can determine the proximity of the nearby devices. Smus teaches that proximity can be determined by estimating a distance between the source user device and another detected nearby user device (a second user device). The distance can be estimated with any suitable mechanism. For example, process 600 can estimate the distance using an audio pulse method (e.g., an audio time of arrival method) in which the distance can be estimated by the source user device transmitting an audio tone or chirp, directing the second user device to send a signal to the source user device when the tone is first detected by the second user device, and measuring the distance between the devices based on the time it takes for the sound to travel through the air between the devices and the speed of sound through the air. In some such implementations, the distance estimate can be further refined based on any suitable information, such as ambient temperature. As another example, process 600 can estimate the distance between the source user device and other user devices using signals from an external service. As a more particular example, process 600 can estimate the distance between user devices based on locations determined and shared by each device using GPS signals. As another particular example, process 600 can estimate the distance between user devices based on locations determined and shared by each device using mobile device tracking techniques such as triangulation from network radio towers) (Smus, FIG. 6, col. 7, ll. 9-10, col. 7, ll. 33-60); and compute, based on the plurality of current status parameters, a priority score for each of the plurality of devices, wherein the priority score for the each device of the plurality of devices is based at least in part on the proximity of the each device of the plurality of devices to the first device (wherein Smus further teaches that at 612, process 600 can select a set of candidate devices capable of performing an action from the detected nearby devices. The action is described above as an action to be performed by a user device, and is indicated by a received user input. Any suitable type of user input can be received, such as keyboard entries, mouse clicks, gestures, voice commands, or any other suitable type of input. User input can be received in any suitable manner, for example, through infrared signals, radio signals, physical connections, or through any other suitable manner. The received user input can indicate any suitable types of actions that can be performed by a user device, such as an input to begin playing streaming media content, an input to open an application, an input to initiate a phone call, an input to open an e-mail client, and/or any other suitable inputs indicating an action that can be performed by a user device. Examiner notes that based on the above, the disclosed “action” reads on the recited “digital electronic notification,” as the selected device from the set of candidate devices will receive a “digital electronic notification” to perform the given action. Smus teaches that process 600 can select the set of candidate devices in any suitable manner. For example, process 600 can first identify a device type for each of the detected nearby devices. As a specific example, device types can include laptop, mobile phone, desktop computer, tablet computer, television, or any other suitable device type. Process 600 can then select a set of candidate device(s) based on the device types associated with the detected nearby devices and the action type associated with the action to be performed. At 614, process 600 can select one or more target devices from the set of candidate devices. Smus teaches that this selection can be made, e.g., by determining a priority score associated with each of the candidate devices. The priority score can be determined based on any suitable information. For example, the priority score can be based on one or more of the device types associated with the candidate devices, the action type associated with the action to be performed, as well as the proximity of each of the candidate devices to the source user device, user preferences, information relating to a current state of user attention, and/or any other suitable factor(s). In some implementations, process 600 can combine information from one or more factors by weighting the information to form a single priority score for each candidate device. Process 600 can then select the target device(s) by ranking the set of candidate devices based on their priority scores) (Smus, col. 8, ll. 37-49, col. 8, l. 62-col. 9, l. 39); and based, at least in part, on the priority score for the each device of the plurality of devices, select a particular device of the plurality of devices to receive the digital electronic notification (wherein at 618, process 600 can cause the action to be performed by the target device(s), particularly by transmitting a signal with information about the action to be performed to the target device(s)) (Smus, FIG. 6, col. 9, ll. 48-53). DeLuca is analogous art because DeLuca is from the same problem solving area, namely, device notifications (See DeLuca, paragraph [0001]), while Smus is analogous art because Smus is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, as Smus is directed to techniques for selecting from a candidate device to perform a given action, particularly given the proliferation of computing devices and users often having multiple such devices that they frequently use (See Smus, col. 1, ll. 12-23). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of DeLuca and Smus before him or her, to modify the system of DeLuca to include the additional limitations of wherein the plurality of the current status parameters comprise a proximity of the each device of the plurality of devices to the first device; and compute, based on the plurality of current status parameters, a priority score for each of the plurality of devices, wherein the priority score for the each device of the plurality of devices is based at least in part on the proximity of the each device of the plurality of devices to the first device; and based, at least in part, on the priority score for the each device of the plurality of devices, select a particular device of the plurality of devices to receive the digital electronic notification, as disclosed by Smus, with reasonable expectation that this would result in more efficiently selecting an appropriate device for receiving a given notification, particularly by taking into account a number of factors, including device status, as well as proximity to the source device, (which would reduce latency and improve bandwidth given efficiency of network connections), and using a weighting scale to combine factors and select the most optimal device (See Smus, col. 1, ll. 16-23, col. 9, ll. 33-36). This method of improving the notification system of DeLuca was well within the ordinary ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Smus. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of DeLuca with Smus to obtain the invention as specified in claim 11.
Regarding claim 12, DeLuca-Smus discloses the system of claim 11, wherein the control circuitry is configured to determine the proximity of the each device of the plurality of devices to the first device based at least in part on one or more of geolocation data (again, DeLuca at least teaches determining based on a geofence) (DeLuca, paragraphs [0018], [0019] and [0060]), a Bluetooth connection between the first device and the each device of the plurality of devices, or an indication that the each device of the plurality of devices is connected to the same network as the first device. The motivation regarding the obviousness of claim 11 is also applied to claim 12.
Regarding claim 17, DeLuca-Smus discloses the system of claim 11, wherein the control circuitry is configured to transmit the digital electronic notification to the particular device by: determining, based at least in part on the contents of the digital electronic notification, that the first device is not optimal for viewing the notification (again, DeLuca teaches determining which device to send to, and by extension, which device not to send to) (DeLuca, paragraphs [0032] and [0033]). The motivation regarding the obviousness of claim 11 is also applied to claim 17.
Regarding claim 18, DeLuca-Smus discloses the system of claim 11, wherein the plurality of current status parameters further comprise one or more of device settings of the each deice of the plurality of devices (wherein the device setting for each user device may be equipped with settings that allow the system to determine user preferences for receiving messages and alerting the system in general to user preferences) (DeLuca, paragraph [0070]), device health information of the each of the plurality of devices, data relating to the last usage of the each device of the plurality of devices, device type of the each device of the plurality of devices, user preference information of the each device of the plurality of devices, or network information. The motivation regarding the obviousness of claim 11 is also applied to claim 18.
Regarding claim 19, DeLuca-Smus discloses the system of claim 18, wherein the control circuitry is configured to compute the priority score by: generating, based at least in part on the plurality of status parameters, status values (again, the priority score can be based on one or more of the device types associated with the candidate devices, the action type associated with the action to be performed, the proximity of each of the candidate devices to the source user device, user preferences, information relating to a current state of user attention, and/or any other suitable factor(s)) (Smus, col. 9, ll. 27-33); and weighting the status values for the each device of the plurality of devices (again, process 600 can combine information from one or more factors by weighting the information to form a single priority score for each candidate device) (Smus, col. 9, ll. 34-36). As discussed and shown above, DeLuca is analogous art because DeLuca is from the same problem solving area, namely, device notifications (See DeLuca, paragraph [0001]), while Smus is analogous art because Smus is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, as Smus is directed to techniques for selecting from a candidate device to perform a given action, particularly given the proliferation of computing devices and users often having multiple such devices that they frequently use (See Smus, col. 1, ll. 12-23). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of DeLuca and Smus before him or her, to modify the system of DeLuca to include the additional limitations of generating, based at least in part on the plurality of status parameters, status values; and weighting the status values for the each device of the plurality of devices, as disclosed by Smus, with reasonable expectation that this would result in more efficiently selecting an appropriate device for receiving a given notification, particularly by taking into account a number of factors, including device status, as well as proximity to the source device, and using a weighting scale to combine factors and select the most optimal device (See Smus, col. 9, ll. 33-36). This method of improving the notification system of DeLuca was well within the ordinary ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Smus. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of DeLuca with Smus to obtain the invention as specified in claim 19.
Regarding claim 20, DeLuca-Smus discloses the system of claim 18, wherein the control circuitry is configured to compute the priority score by: normalizing the plurality of status parameters of the each device of the plurality of devices to the first device to a particular range of values (wherein the proximity scores can converted to normalized values on an arbitrary scale (e.g., 0 to 100, 0 to 1, −5 to 5, or any other suitable scale)) (Smus, col. 11, ll. 52-54); and adding the particular range of values for the each device of the plurality of devices (wherein multiple estimates of distance and/or proximity between a candidate device and the source user device can be combined to determine a proximity score) (Smus, col. 11, ll. 41-43). Again, DeLuca is analogous art because DeLuca is from the same problem solving area, namely, device notifications (See DeLuca, paragraph [0001]), while Smus is analogous art because Smus is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, as Smus is directed to techniques for selecting from a candidate device to perform a given action, particularly given the proliferation of computing devices and users often having multiple such devices that they frequently use (See Smus, col. 1, ll. 12-23). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of DeLuca and Smus before him or her, to modify the system of DeLuca to include the additional limitations of normalizing the plurality of status parameters of the each device of the plurality of devices to the first device to a particular range of values; and adding the particular range of values for the each device of the plurality of devices, as disclosed by Smus, with reasonable expectation that this would result in the ability to select from a number of different ways to present the proximity scores and to select the most optimal device (See Smus, col. 11, ll. 44-56). This method of improving the notification system of DeLuca was well within the ordinary ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Smus. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of DeLuca with Smus to obtain the invention as specified in claim 20.
Claims 1, 2, and 7-10 include method claims that perform limitations substantially as recited in “system” claims 11, 12 and 17-20, respectively, and do not appear to contain any additional features with regard to novelty and/or nonobviousness; therefore, they are rejected under the same rationale.
8. Claims 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DeLuca-Smus, and further in view of Achamola et al. (United States Patent No. US 10,187,870 B1), hereinafter “Achamola”.
Regarding claim 13, DeLuca-Smus discloses the system of claim 11, but does not expressly disclose wherein the plurality of devices are connected via an Internet of Things (IoT) network. However in an analogous art, Achamola discloses wherein a plurality of devices are connected via an Internet of Things (IoT) network (wherein disclosure provides systems, methods and apparatus, including computer programs encoded on computer storage media for intelligent routing of notifications of incoming voice communication requests. A device, such as a smartphone, may receive an incoming voice communication request, such as a cellular voice call. The smartphone may then identify devices connected to it, such as headsets, tablets, etc., and request each device activate a microphone or camera to attempt to locate the user with respect to the connected devices. The smartphone may then select one of the connected devices, or itself, as the device best able to notify the user of the incoming call based on captured audio, images, or video. The smartphone may then request the selected device output a notification, such as a ring tone, to notify the user of the incoming call. Such a technique may avoid inundating the user with simultaneous call notifications from multiple devices. The devices are connected through an IoT network) (Achamola, Abstract, col. 3, ll. 20-21). Again, DeLuca is analogous art because DeLuca is from the same problem solving area, namely, device notifications (See DeLuca, paragraph [0001]), while Smus and Achamola are analogous art because Smus and Achamola are reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, as Smus is directed to techniques for selecting from a candidate device to perform a given action, particularly given the proliferation of computing devices and users often having multiple such devices that they frequently use (See Smus, col. 1, ll. 12-23), and Achamola is directed to techniques for routing a notification of an incoming voice or video communication request (or “call”) to an electronic device (See Achamola, col. 3, ll. 23-25). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of DeLuca-Smus and Achamola before him or her, to modify the system of DeLuca-Smus to include the additional limitation of wherein a plurality of devices are connected via an Internet of Things (IoT) network, as disclosed by Achamola, with reasonable expectation that this would result in enabling users to connect to multiple IoT devices, enabling greater forms of communication (See Achamola, col. 1, ll. 16-27). This method of improving the notification system of DeLuca-Smus was well within the ordinary ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Achamola. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of DeLuca-Smus with Achamola to obtain the invention as specified in claim 13.
Claim 3 includes a method claim that performs limitations substantially as recited in “system” claim 13, and does not appear to contain any additional features with regard to novelty and/or nonobviousness; therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale.
9. Claims 4-6 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DeLuca-Smus, and further in view of Zhang et al. (United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2016/0057086 A1), hereinafter “Zhang”.
Regarding claim 14, DeLuca-Smus discloses the system of claim 11, but does not expressly disclose wherein the control circuitry is configured to transmit the digital electronic notification to the particular device based at least in part on a determination that no user interface interaction with the digital electronic notification was received on the first device within a threshold period of time. However in an analogous art, Zhang disclose transmitting a digital electronic notification to a particular device based at least in part on a determination that no user interface interaction with the digital electronic notification was received on the first device within a threshold period of time (wherein referring to FIG. 3, Zhang teaches whether a reaction by a user is detected within a first time period. More particularly, at a user reaction from the user 120 to the event 101 may be detected for a first predetermined time period. At 313, it can be determined that whether the user 120 reacts to the event 101 within the first predetermined time period. If the user 120 does not react, a first non-react message may be displayed at 315. After the CDN is transmitted, a user reaction to the CDN may be detected based on sync information, at 326, for a second predetermined time period. At 327, it can be determined that whether the user 120 reacts to the CDN within the second predetermined time period. If the user 120 does not react, a second non-react message may be displayed at 329. If the user 120 reacts, a second react message may be displayed at 328) (Zhang, FIG. 3, paragraphs [0055] and [0057]). DeLuca and Zhang are analogous art because DeLuca and Zhang are from the same problem solving area, namely, device notifications (See DeLuca, paragraph [0001], Zhang, paragraph [0002]), while Smus is analogous art because Smus is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, as Smus is directed to techniques for selecting from a candidate device to perform a given action, particularly given the proliferation of computing devices and users often having multiple such devices that they frequently use (See Smus, col. 1, ll. 12-23). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of DeLuca-Smus and Zhang before him or her, to modify the system of DeLuca-Smus to include the additional limitation of transmitting a digital electronic notification to a particular device based at least in part on a determination that no user interface interaction with the digital electronic notification was received on the first device within a threshold period of time, as disclosed by Zhang, with reasonable expectation that this would result in in improved and more efficient device notification and ensuring device notifications were seen by determining the most likely active devices based on scores (See Zhang, paragraph [0036]). This method of improving the notification system of DeLuca-Smus was well within the ordinary ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Zhang. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of DeLuca-Smus with Zhang to obtain the invention as specified in claim 14.
Regarding claim 15, DeLuca-Smus-Zhang discloses the system of claim 11, wherein the control circuitry is configured to transmit the digital electronic notification to the particular device based at least in part on a determination that the digital electronic notification has an urgency level that is greater than a threshold urgency level (wherein with reference to FIG. 4, Zhang discloses a block diagram illustrating an exemplary embodiment of a CDN controller 212, in accordance with one embodiment of the present teaching. In this embodiment, the CDN controller 212 may include a priority determining unit 410 for determining a priority for an incoming event, an active device detector 440 for detecting active devices associated with the user 120, and a CDN determining unit 430 for determining whether a CDN is needed and determining and sending features of the CDN to the CDN generator 213 if a CDN is needed. The priority for the incoming event may be determined at the priority determining unit 410 based on certain configuration parameters 420 and/or event related information obtained at the event detector 211. Once the event detector 211 receives an incoming event, it can analyze the event and obtain some event related information, e.g., a source of the event, time when the event is received, whether the event is urgent, etc. For example, an urgent event may be determined to have a higher priority than a regular event. The configuration parameters 420 may be set up by the user 120 to determine, e.g., a list of sources in order of priority, a list of time periods in order of priority, etc. For example, events from some specific sources, e.g., the user 120's boss, may be determined to have a higher priority than other events. Events received in certain time period, e.g., the user 120's vacation time, may be determined to have a lower priority than events received in other time periods) (Zhang, FIG. 4, paragraphs [0059]-[0060]). DeLuca and Zhang are analogous art because DeLuca and Zhang are from the same problem solving area, namely, device notifications (See DeLuca, paragraph [0001], Zhang, paragraph [0002]), while Smus is analogous art because Smus is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, as Smus is directed to techniques for selecting from a candidate device to perform a given action, particularly given the proliferation of computing devices and users often having multiple such devices that they frequently use (See Smus, col. 1, ll. 12-23). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of DeLuca-Smus and Zhang before him or her, to modify the system of DeLuca-Smus to include the additional limitation of wherein the control circuitry is configured to transmit the digital electronic notification to the particular device based at least in part on a determination that the digital electronic notification has an urgency level that is greater than a threshold urgency level, as disclosed by Zhang, with reasonable expectation that this would result in improved and more efficient device notification by determining that the user has not reacted to an incoming event, active devices have been detected, and the priority of the incoming event is higher than a predetermined threshold (See Zhang, paragraph [0061]). This method of improving the notification system of DeLuca-Smus was well within the ordinary ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Zhang. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of DeLuca-Smus with Zhang to obtain the invention as specified in claim 15.
Regarding claim 16, DeLuca-Smus-Zhang discloses system of claim 15, wherein the control circuitry is configured to determine the urgency level of the digital electronic notification based at least in part on keyword analysis of the contents of the digital electronic notification (again, based on certain events, e.g., events from some specific sources, e.g., the user 120’s boss, may be determined to have a higher priority than other events. Events received in certain time period, e.g., the user 120’s vacation time, may be determined to have a lower priority than events received in other time periods) (Zhang, paragraph [0060]). The motivation regarding the obviousness of claim 15 is also applied to claim 16.
Claims 4-6 include method claims that perform limitations substantially as recited in “system” claims 14-16, respectively, and do not appear to contain any additional features with regard to novelty and/or nonobviousness; therefore, they are rejected under the same rationale.
Conclusion
10. This is a Continuation of Applicant’s earlier Application No. 17/496,599. All claims are identical to, patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with the invention claimed in the earlier application (that is, restriction (including lack of unity) would not be proper) and could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the earlier application. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action in this case. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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.
11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KOSTAS J. KATSIKIS whose telephone number is (571)270-5434. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00am-5:00pm. 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, Kamal B. Divecha can be reached at 571-272-5863. 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.
/KOSTAS J KATSIKIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2453
Prosecution Insights