DETAILED ACTION
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 .
This office action is in response to preliminary amendment filed on 05/01/2025.
Claims 1-20 are canceled. Claims 21-40 are newly added.
Claims 21-40 present for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
It is hereby acknowledged that the following papers have been received and placed of record in the file:
Information Disclosure Statement(s) as received on 02/04/2025 is/are considered by the Examiner.
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claims 28-34 be found allowable, claims 35-40 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 21-24, 28-31, and 35-38 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3, 4, 9, 11, and 12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,218,900 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims in the patent anticipate all the claims in the applications.
Instant Application
Patent (US 12,218,900 B2)
21. A method comprising:
receiving, by one or more processors at a first time, a first request to transmit a first electronic message to an account associated with an electronic device and a pilot, the first electronic message associated with a first flight event;
in response at least in part to identifying that the first time is within a restricted period in which an employer of the pilot is restricted from contacting the pilot, queuing, by the one or more processors, the first electronic message without notification to the electronic device; and
in response at least in part to identifying an end of the restricted period, transmitting, by the one or more processors, a second electronic message to the account associated with the electronic device, the second electronic message comprising an updated flight event in accordance with the first flight event.
1. A method comprising:
receiving, by a processor at a first time, a first request to transmit a first electronic message to a pilot account associated with a user device, the first electronic message associated with a first flight event;
in response to identifying that the first time is within a restricted non-flying period in which an employer of a pilot is restricted from contacting the pilot, wherein the pilot is associated with the pilot account, queuing the first electronic message without notification to the user device;
receiving, by the processor, at a second time, a second request to transmit a second electronic message to the user device, the second electronic message associated with a second flight event;
in response to identifying that the second time is within the restricted non-flying period, queuing the second electronic message without notification to the user device; and
in response to identifying an end of the restricted non-flying period, transmitting, by the processor at a third time after the end of the restricted non-flying period, a third electronic message to the pilot account associated with the user device to be outputted, the third electronic message comprising an updated flight event in accordance with the first flight event and the second flight event.
22. The method of claim 21, further comprising:
identifying, by the one or more processors, that the first time is within the restricted period in which the employer of the pilot is restricted from contacting the pilot.
1. A method comprising:
…
in response to identifying that the first time is within a restricted non-flying period in which an employer of a pilot is restricted from contacting the pilot, wherein the pilot is associated with the pilot account, queuing the first electronic message without notification to the user device;
…
23. The method of claim 21, wherein the one or more processors transmit the first electronic message or the second electronic message to the account associated with the electronic device in response to receiving an indication that the electronic device is executing an application configured to output the first electronic message or the second electronic message.
3. The method of claim 2, wherein the processor transmits the first electronic message or the second electronic message in response to receiving an indication that the user device is executing an application configured to output the first electronic message or the second electronic message.
24. The method of claim 22, wherein identifying that the first time is within the restricted period comprises calculating, by the one or more processors, the restricted period based at least in part on a flight duration, a flight starting time, a flight landing time, a flight path, a flight distance, a type of flight, or a type of plane.
4. The method of claim 1, further comprising:
calculating, by the processor, the restricted non-flying period in accordance with flight duration, flight starting time, flight landing time, flight path, flight distance, a type of flight, a type of plane, and a number of time-zones associated with a flight associated with the pilot account.
28. A system comprising:
one or more processors; and
a computer-readable, non-transitory storage medium comprising instructions that when executed by the one or more processors cause the one or more processors to execute a method comprising:
receiving, at a first time, a first request to transmit a first electronic message to an account associated with an electronic device and a pilot, the first electronic message associated with a first flight event;
in response at least in part to identifying that the first time is within a restricted period in which an employer of the pilot is restricted from contacting the pilot, queuing the first electronic message without notification to the electronic device; and
in response at least in part to identifying an end of the restricted period, transmitting a second electronic message to the account associated with the electronic device, the second electronic message comprising an updated flight event in accordance with the first flight event.
9. A computer system comprising:
a server comprising a processor and a non-transitory computer-readable medium containing instructions that when executed by the processor causes the processor to perform operations comprising:
receiving, at a first time, a first request to transmit a first electronic message to a pilot account associated with a user device, the first electronic message associated with a first flight event;
in response to identifying that the first time is within a restricted non-flying period in which an employer of a pilot is restricted from contacting the pilot, wherein the pilot is associated with the pilot account, queuing the first electronic message without notification to the user device;
receiving, at a second time, a second request to transmit a second electronic message to the user device, the second electronic message associated with a second flight event;
in response to identifying that the second time is within the restricted non-flying period, queuing the second electronic message without notification to the user device; and
in response to identifying an end of the restricted non-flying period, transmitting, at a third time after the end of the restricted non-flying period, a third electronic message to the pilot account associated with the user device to be outputted, the third electronic message comprising an updated flight event in accordance with the first flight event and the second flight event.
29. The system of claim 28, the method further comprising:
identifying, by the one or more processors, that the first time is within the restricted period in which the employer of the pilot is restricted from contacting the pilot.
9. A computer system comprising:
…
in response to identifying that the first time is within a restricted non-flying period in which an employer of a pilot is restricted from contacting the pilot, wherein the pilot is associated with the pilot account, queuing the first electronic message without notification to the user device;
…
30. The system of claim 28, wherein the one or more processors transmit the first electronic message or the second electronic message to the account associated with the electronic device in response to receiving an indication that the electronic device is executing an application configured to output the first electronic message or the second electronic message.
11. The computer system of claim 10, wherein the instructions further cause the processor to perform operations comprising:
transmitting the first electronic message or the second electronic message in response to receiving an indication that the user device is executing an application configured to output the first electronic message or the second electronic message.
31. The system of claim 29, wherein identifying that the first time is within the restricted period comprises calculating the restricted period based at least in part on a flight duration, a flight starting time, a flight landing time, a flight path, a flight distance, a type of flight, or a type of plane.
12. The computer system of claim 9, wherein the instructions further cause the processor to perform operations comprising:
calculating the restricted non-flying period in accordance with flight duration, flight starting time, flight landing time, flight path, flight distance, a type of flight, a type of plane, and a number of time-zones associated with a flight associated with the pilot account.
35. A system comprising:
one or more processors; and
a computer-readable, non-transitory storage medium comprising instructions that when executed by the one or more processors cause the one or more processors to execute a method comprising:
receiving, at a first time, a first request to transmit a first electronic message to an account associated with an electronic device and a pilot, the first electronic message associated with a first flight event;
in response at least in part to identifying that the first time is within a restricted period in which an employer of the pilot is restricted from contacting the pilot, queuing the first electronic message without notification to the electronic device; and
in response at least in part to identifying an end of the restricted period, transmitting a second electronic message to the account associated with the electronic device, the second electronic message comprising an updated flight event in accordance with the first flight event.
9. A computer system comprising:
a server comprising a processor and a non-transitory computer-readable medium containing instructions that when executed by the processor causes the processor to perform operations comprising:
receiving, at a first time, a first request to transmit a first electronic message to a pilot account associated with a user device, the first electronic message associated with a first flight event;
in response to identifying that the first time is within a restricted non-flying period in which an employer of a pilot is restricted from contacting the pilot, wherein the pilot is associated with the pilot account, queuing the first electronic message without notification to the user device;
receiving, at a second time, a second request to transmit a second electronic message to the user device, the second electronic message associated with a second flight event;
in response to identifying that the second time is within the restricted non-flying period, queuing the second electronic message without notification to the user device; and
in response to identifying an end of the restricted non-flying period, transmitting, at a third time after the end of the restricted non-flying period, a third electronic message to the pilot account associated with the user device to be outputted, the third electronic message comprising an updated flight event in accordance with the first flight event and the second flight event.
36. The system of claim 35, the method further comprising:
identifying, by the one or more processors, that the first time is within the restricted period in which the employer of the pilot is restricted from contacting the pilot.
9. A computer system comprising:
…
in response to identifying that the first time is within a restricted non-flying period in which an employer of a pilot is restricted from contacting the pilot, wherein the pilot is associated with the pilot account, queuing the first electronic message without notification to the user device;
…
37. The system of claim 35, wherein the one or more processors transmit the first electronic message or the second electronic message to the account associated with the electronic device in response to receiving an indication that the electronic device is executing an application configured to output the first electronic message or the second electronic message.
11. The computer system of claim 10, wherein the instructions further cause the processor to perform operations comprising:
transmitting the first electronic message or the second electronic message in response to receiving an indication that the user device is executing an application configured to output the first electronic message or the second electronic message.
38. The system of claim 36, wherein identifying that the first time is within the restricted period comprises calculating the restricted period based at least in part on a flight duration, a flight starting time, a flight landing time, a flight path, a flight distance, a type of flight, or a type of plane.
12. The computer system of claim 9, wherein the instructions further cause the processor to perform operations comprising:
calculating the restricted non-flying period in accordance with flight duration, flight starting time, flight landing time, flight path, flight distance, a type of flight, a type of plane, and a number of time-zones associated with a flight associated with the pilot account.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 of carrying out his invention.
Claims 26, 33, and 40 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. The examiner is unable to find support in the specification for “in response at least in part to receiving an indication that the account has not opened the second electronic message, updating, by the one or more processors, the second electronic message based at least in part on the second flight event”.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 22, 29, and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. The claim recites identifying that the first time is within the restricted period in which the employer of the pilot is restricted from contacting the pilot, which does not further limit the limitation of “in response at least in part to identifying that the first time is within a restricted period in which an employer of the pilot is restricted from contacting the pilot, queuing…” in the independent claims. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
Claim(s) 21-23, 28-30, and 35-37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horvitz (US 2004/0254998 A1) in view of Mohideen et al. (US 2019/0334614 A1), hereinafter Mohideen, in view of Olsen et al. (US 2013/0031172 A1), hereinafter Olsen.
Regarding claim 21, Horvitz discloses
A method comprising:
receiving, by one or more processors at a first time, a first request to transmit a first electronic message to an account associated with an electronic device ([0060]: the notification manager just received a message from a notification source and attempts to deliver the message in accordance with a bounded deferral period specified by the bounded deferral data; & [0071]: during busy states of the user, a high and low priority message are queued by a notification agent or manager; & [0102]: a new notification is received);
in response at least in part to identifying that the first time is within a restricted period (busy state/time of day constraints), queuing, by the one or more processors, the first electronic message without notification to the electronic device ([0071]: during busy states of the user, a high and low priority message are queued by a notification agent or manager; & [0090]: set time of day constraints can be provided to restrict notifications during certain times (e.g., late at night and early morning, weekends); & [0102]: the received notification is placed onto a message queue; a determination is made as to whether the received notification should be immediately passed through to the user); and
in response at least in part to identifying an end of the restricted period, transmitting, by the one or more processors, a second electronic message to the account associated with the electronic device ([0071]: notifications or messages are not delivered until an available free state is reached; a time bound that was set as a max deferral time is reached for the high priority message and thus the high priority message is delivered to the user; an available free state corresponds to restricted period; & [0078]: a display of notifications can include multiple, or pooled notifications that have been waiting, so as to send to the user a single notification that contains chunks of grouped notifications).
Horvitz does not explicitly disclose
account associated with a pilot, the first electronic message associated with a first flight event;
the second electronic message comprising an updated flight event in accordance with the first flight event.
However, Mohideen discloses, for example [0022], the pilot receive the most relevant weather update for the flight.
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate feature of Mohideen in Horvitz because Horvitz discloses queuing messages when the user is busy and transmit the messages to user when the user is available ([0071]) and Mohideen further suggests transmits the most relevant update for the flight to pilot ([0022]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize the teachings of Mohideen in Horvitz system in order to provide the most relevant update to user.
Horvitz and Mohideen do not explicitly disclose
a restricted period in which an employer of the pilot is restricted from contacting the pilot.
However, Olsen discloses
a restricted period in which an employer of the pilot is restricted from contacting the pilot ([0380]: if the employee is unavailable, then the message may be sent to the employee’s backup instead; as a result, a user may avoid sending a message to the employee when the employee is unavailable and save time by directly contacting a backup who is available to respond to his message).
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate feature of Olsen in Horvitz and Mohideen because Horvitz and Mohideen disclose queuing messages when the user is busy and transmit the messages to user when the user is available ([0071]) and Olsen further suggests a user avoids sending a message to the employee when the employee is unavailable ([0380]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize the teachings of in Horvitz and Mohideen system in order to save time.
Regarding claim 22, the limitations of claim 22 are rejected in the analysis of claim 1 above and this claim is rejected on that basis.
Regarding claim 23, Horvitz, Mohideen, and Olsen disclose the method as described in claim 21. Horvitz further discloses
the one or more processors transmit the first electronic message or the second electronic message to the account associated with the electronic device in response to receiving an indication that the electronic device is executing an application configured to output the first electronic message or the second electronic message ([0027]: it is noted that the When-Free architecture described above can support several communications scenarios or applications relating to substantially any type of messaging including electronic text messages as well as traditional analog communications).
Regarding claims 28-30, the limitations of claims 28-30 are rejected in the analysis of claims 21-23 respectively and these claims are rejected on that basis.
Regarding claims 35-37, the limitations of claims 35-37 are rejected in the analysis of claims 21-23 respectively and these claims are rejected on that basis.
Claim(s) 24, 31, and 38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horvitz in view of Mohideen, in view of Olsen, and further in view of Hart et al. (US 2021/0136014 A1), hereinafter Hart.
Regarding claim 24, Horvitz, Mohideen, and Olsen disclose the method as described in claim 21.
identifying that the first time is within the restricted period comprises calculating, by the one or more processors, the restricted period based at least in part on a flight duration, a flight starting time, a flight landing time, a flight path, a flight distance, a type of flight, or a type of plane.
However, Hart discloses
identifying that the first time is within the restricted period comprises calculating, by the one or more processors, the restricted period based at least in part on a flight duration ([0062]: the system determines based on analyzing an electronic communication, that the user will be travelling for a predetermined time interval; here, the system determines the user activity to include holding emails and other communications during the predetermined travel time interval; predetermined travel time interval corresponds to the restricted period based on a flight duration), a flight starting time, a flight landing time, a flight path, a flight distance, a type of flight, or a type of plane.
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate feature of Hart in Horvitz, Mohideen, and Olsen because Horvitz, Mohideen, and Olsen disclose queuing messages when the user is busy and transmit the messages to user when the user is available (Horvitz: [0071]) and Hart further suggests holding emails and other communications during the predetermined travel time interval ([0062]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize the teachings of Hart in Horvitz, Mohideen, and Olsen system in order to provide the message/communications to user in proper time.
Regarding claims 31 and 38, the limitations of claims 31 and 38 are rejected in the analysis of claim 24 above and these claims are rejected on that basis.
Claim(s) 25, 32, and 39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horvitz in view of Mohideen, in view of Olsen, and further in view of Barsness et al. (US 2018/0006979 A1), hereinafter Barsness.
Regarding claim 25, Horvitz, Mohideen, and Olsen disclose the method as described in claim 21. Horvitz, Mohideen, and Olsen do not explicitly
interpreting, by the one or more processors, the first electronic message using natural language processing; and
generating, by the one or more processors, the second electronic message based at least in part on the interpreted first electronic message.
However, Barsness discloses
interpreting, by the one or more processors, the first electronic message using natural language processing ([0015]: utilize natural language generation (NLG) to generate suggested alternative message content or automatically modify a message when NLP analysis identifies a potential issue with the message content (e.g., poor grammar)); and
generating, by the one or more processors, the second electronic message based at least in part on the interpreted first electronic message ([0015]: utilize natural language generation (NLG) to generate suggested alternative message content or automatically modify a message when NLP analysis identifies a potential issue with the message content (e.g., poor grammar)).
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate feature of Barsness in Horvitz, Mohideen, and Olsen because Horvitz, Mohideen, and Olsen disclose queuing messages when the user is busy and transmit the messages to user when the user is available (Horvitz: [0071]) and Barsness further suggests generate alternative message content when NLP analysis identifies a potential issue with the message content ([0015]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize the teachings of Barsness in Horvitz, Mohideen, and Olsen system in order to provide better user experience.
Regarding claims 32 and 39, the limitations of claims 32 and 39 are rejected in the analysis of claim 25 above and these claims are rejected on that basis.
Claim(s) 26, 27, 33, 34, and 40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horvitz in view of Mohideen, in view of Olsen, and further in view of Byadgi et al. (US 2020/0404025 A1), hereinafter Byadgi.
Regarding claim 26, Horvitz, Mohideen, and Olsen disclose the method as described in claim 21. Horvitz, Mohideen, and Olsen do not explicitly
receiving, by the one or more processors, a third electronic message associated with a second flight event; and
in response at least in part to receiving an indication that the account has not opened the second electronic message, updating, by the one or more processors, the second electronic message based at least in part on the second flight event.
However, Byadgi discloses
receiving, by the one or more processors, a third electronic message associated with a second flight event ([0092]: the user of the electornic device modifies the message as “Shall we meet in Total mall at 5 pm today?” and sends to the second electronic device); and
in response at least in part to receiving an indication that the account has not opened the second electronic message, updating, by the one or more processors, the second electronic message based at least in part on the second flight event ([0092]: the user of the first electronic device decided to change the place and time, since recipient not yet read the message, the user of the electronic device modifies the message as “Shall we meet in Total mall at 5 pm today?” and sends to the second electronic device).
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate feature of Byadgi in Horvitz, Mohideen, and Olsen because Horvitz, Mohideen, and Olsen disclose queuing messages when the user is busy and transmit the messages to user when the user is available (Horvitz: [0071]) and Byadgi further suggests modifies a sent message ([0092]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize the teachings of Byadgi in Horvitz, Mohideen, and Olsen system in order to provide the updated message/communications to user.
Regarding claim 27, Horvitz, Mohideen, Olsen, and Byadgi disclose the method as described in claim 26. Horvitz, Mohideen, Olsen, and Byadgi further disclose
transmitting, by the one or more processors, the updated second electronic message to the account associated with the electronic device (Byadgi: [0092]: the user of the first electronic device decided to change the place and time, since recipient not yet read the message, the user of the electronic device modifies the message as “Shall we meet in Total mall at 5 pm today?” and sends to the second electronic device); and
providing, by the one or more processors, a notification of the updated second electronic message on the electronic device (Mohideen: [0022]: the ground system may identify such information in the notification (e.g., update template) sent to the aircraft via VHF ACARS). Therefore, the limitations of claim 27 are rejected in the analysis of claim 26 above, and the claim is rejected on that basis.
Regarding claims 33 and 40, the limitations of claims 33 and 40 are rejected in the analysis of claim 26 above and these claims are rejected on that basis.
Regarding claim 34, the limitations of claim 34 are rejected in the analysis of claim 27 above and this claim is rejected on that basis.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
O’Sullivan et al. (US 2010/0332602 A1). Some or all messages may be prevented from being delivered to the user during the defined suspension period ([0037]).
Dion et al. (US 2008/0086379 A1). A user may limit the times at which messages may be received, e.g., to prevent messages from being sent too late in the evening or too early in the day; the messages may be queued at a jukebox or at a server for later delivery ([0186]).
Matsumoto (US 2002/0156854 A1). User updates the notification conditions set in the unopened notification condition master.
Arquero et al. (US 2018/0089171 A1). Analyze, based at least in part on one or more natural-language processing libraries, multiple messages of the plurality; determining one or more sentiments associated with each of the multiple messages, and generating aggregate sentiment information regarding one or more subsets of the multiple messages.
McGuffin et al. (US 2015/0089392 A1). Some messages received at the beginning of the flight such as flight plan or weather information may need to be reviewed by the pilot later in the flight.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAYLEE J HUANG whose telephone number is (571)272-0080. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM.
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, Joon H Hwang can be reached at 571-272-4036. 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.
Kaylee Huang
06/26/2026
/KAYLEE J HUANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2447
Prosecution Insights