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 is a Final Office Action in response to application 19/072,474 entitled "SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR IMPROVED AGENT-CONSUMER COMMUNICATION" filed on August 13, 2026, with claims 21-27, 29-32, and 34-37 pending.
Status of Claims
Claims 21-24, 26, 27, 29-32, and 34-35 have been amended and are hereby entered.
Claims 28 and 33 are cancelled.
Claims 36 and 37 are new.
Claims 21-27, 29-32, and 34-37 are pending and have been examined.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed August 13, 2026, has been entered. Claims 21-27, 29-32, and 34-37 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the Specification, Drawings, and/or Claims have been noted in response to the Non-Final Office Action mailed June 5, 2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on June 10, 2025, is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the Examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 21-27, 29-32, and 34-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Please see MPEP 2106 for additional information regarding Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Claims 21-27, 29-32, and 34-37 are directed to a method/process, machine/apparatus, (article of) manufacture, or composition of matter, which are/is one of the statutory categories of invention, which are/is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Independent Claim 21 recites:
“A ….method of …modifying a …specific to a contact record upon receiving user interaction with a control element of the contact record, the …method comprising:
rendering, …a first …screen that comprises a listing of multiple user contacts, the listing of the multiple user contacts including a text name and a selectable reminder element for each user contact of the multiple user contacts, the listing of multiple user contacts including concurrent presentation of:
(i) a name of a first user contact;
(ii) a first selectable reminder element that indicates a date of a first reminder for the first user contact and that is user selectable to cause presentation of a new interface that enables user input to change the date of the first reminder;
(iii) a name of a second user contact;
and (iv) a second selectable reminder element that indicates that the second user contact does not have a reminder and that is user selectable to add a new reminder for the second user contact;
receiving, …through user interaction with the first… screen, user selection of the first user contact from among the multiple user contacts;
rendering, … responsive to the user interaction with the first … screen that selects the first user contact, a second …screen that comprises a contact profile for the first user contact and that includes concurrent presentation of:
(i) the name of the first user contact;
(ii) a phone number or email address of the first user contact;
(iii) a first set of interface elements providing details of the first reminder, including presentation of:
- an indication of the date of the first reminder;
- text that describes a first activity;
and- a first reminder completion selectable element that is configured to indicate completion of the first as activity upon user selection;
(iv) a second set of interface elements providing details of a second reminder, including presentation of:
- an indication of a date of the second reminder;
- text that describes a second activity;
and- a second reminder completion selectable element that is configured to indicate completion of the second activity upon user selection;
and a listing of multiple completed activities;
receiving, … through user interaction with the second …. screen, user selection of the first reminder selectable interface element that is configured to indicate completion of the first activity upon user selection;
and performing, … responsive to the user interaction with the second … screen to select the first reminder completion selectable interface element, an onscreen update to the contact profile for the first user contact to automatically convert the first reminder to a completed activity in the listing of the multiple completed activities by:
(i) removing the presentation of the first reminder from the contact profile for the first user contact;
and (ii) adding the first activity to the listing of the multiple completed activities.”
These limitations clearly relate to managing transactions/interactions between users. These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as certain methods of organizing human activity. Specific instances include instructing to “select the first reminder”, “convert the first reminder to a completed activity” and “adding the first activity to the listing” recite a fundamental economic principles or practice and/or commercial or legal interactions. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a fundamental economic, commercial, or financial action, principle, or practice then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims recite an abstract idea).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of:
[computer-implemented] [a computer] [user interface] [computer-implemented] [a display of a computing device][user interface] [by the computing device]
merely applying computer processing, storage, and user interface technology as tools to perform an abstract idea
are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components and/or electronic processes. For example, the Applicant’s Specification reads:
[0089] the terms machine-readable medium and computer-readable medium refer to any computer program product, apparatus and/or device...used to provide machine instructions and/or data to a programmable processor
[0090] feedback provided to the user can be any form of sensory feedback (e.g., visual feedback, auditory feedback, or tactile feedback); and input from the user can be received in any form, including acoustic, speech, or tactile input.
[0091] The systems and techniques described here can be implemented in a computing system that includes a back end component... or that includes a front end component...or any combination of such back end, middleware, or front end components. The components of the system can be interconnected by any form or medium of digital data communication
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements merely add instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality. Therefore, Claim 21 is directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements merely add instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, the additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered separately and as an ordered combination. The claim further defines the abstract idea and hence is abstract for the reasons presented above. The claim does not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claim does not provide significantly more)
Dependent Claims recite additional elements.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the recited additional elements of
Claims 22-25:
“computer-implemented”: merely applying computer processing, networking, and display technologies as a tool to perform an abstract idea
Claims 26:
“computer-implemented”, “computing device”: merely applying computer processing, networking, and display technologies as a tool to perform an abstract idea
Claims 27:
“computer-implemented”, “computing system”: merely applying computer processing, networking, and display technologies as a tool to perform an abstract idea
Claims 29:
“computer-implemented”: merely applying computer processing, networking, and display technologies as a tool to perform an abstract idea
Claims 30:
“computer-implemented”, “user interface screen”: merely applying computer processing, networking, and display technologies as a tool to perform an abstract idea
Claims 31:
“computer-implemented”, “user interface screen”, “by the computing device”: merely applying computer processing, networking, and display technologies as a tool to perform an abstract idea
Claims 32 and 34:
“computer-implemented”: merely applying computer processing, networking, and display technologies as a tool to perform an abstract idea
Claims 36 and 37:
“computer-implemented”, “user interface”: merely applying computer processing, networking, and display technologies as a tool to perform an abstract idea
are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components and/or electronic processes. For support from the Applicant’s Specification, see the analysis as applied to Independent Claim 1 (Step 2A-Prong 2) earlier. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements merely add instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements merely add instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, these additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered separately and as an ordered combination. Dependent claims further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. The dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the dependent claims are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the dependent claims are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Claim 35 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 21 with further additional elements of “computer-readable devices including instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause a computing device to perform operations”.
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 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.
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.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 21-25, 29-32, and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Retallick ("METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR IMPROVED CONTACT AND ACTIVITY MANAGEMENT AND PLANNING", U.S. Patent Number: US 6442567 B1)in view of Okazawa (“REAL ESTATE BUSINESS MANAGEMENT DEVICE, REAL ESTATE BUSINESS MANAGEMENT METHOD, AND REAL ESTATE BUSINESS MANAGEMENT PROGRAM”, Japanese Publication Number: JP 2020102155 A).
Regarding Claim 21,
Retallick teaches,
A computer-implemented method of a computer modifying a user interface specific to a contact record upon receiving user interaction with a control element of the contact record, the computer-implemented method comprising:
(Retallick [Col 2, Lines 53-55] Contacts are records of customers, Activities are records of information about interactions with, and tasks to be performed for, such customers
Retallick [Col 8, Lines 64-67] Contacts database... processing modules and interfaces to create an improved activity management and planning system
Retallick [Col 13, Lines 55-57] Once created, a Contact record can be modified or added to as new information requires updates to older information.
Retallick [Col 14, Line 67] data presentation and input are possible)
rendering, a display of a computing device, a first user interface screen that comprises a listing of multiple user contacts,
(Retallick [Col 1, Lines 16-19] having an interface for accessing a database of contact records containing information about a plurality of different contacts (subjects)
Retallick [Col 6, Lines 39-40] Contact records and associated screens for creating and displaying those records
Retallick [Col 8, Lines 50-53] display of digital information (data) stored as bytes in a memory device accessible for interaction by a computer.)
the listing of the multiple user contacts including a text name and a selectable reminder element for each user contact of the multiple user contacts, the listing of multiple user contacts including concurrent presentation of: (i) a name of a first user contact;
(Retallick [Col 1, Lines 17-18] a database of contact records containing information about a plurality of different contacts (subjects)
Retallick [Col 2, Lines 16-17] static information (names, addresses, telephone numbers, etc.)
Retallick [Col 6, Line 54] related to different Contacts.)
(ii) a first selectable reminder element that indicates a date of a first reminder for the first user contact and that is user selectable to cause presentation of a new interface that enables user input to change the date of the first reminder;
(Retallick [Col 13, Lines 55-57] Once created, a Contact record can be modified or added to as new information requires updates to older information.
Retallick [Col 19, Lines 60-63] in that the “Due Date” has been replaced by the three data fields: “Requested Date,” “Agreed Date” and “Completed Date.”)
(iii) a name of a second user contact;
(Retallick [Col 1, Lines 17-18] a database of contact records containing information about a plurality of different contacts (subjects)
Retallick [Col 2, Lines 16-17] static information (names, addresses, telephone numbers, etc.)
Retallick [Col 6, Line 54] related to different Contacts.)
and that is user selectable to add a new reminder for the second user contact;
(Retallick [Claim 12] including a Request date data field for recording and storing a date representing a desired completion date)
receiving, by the computing device through user interaction with the first user interface screen, user selection of the first user contact from among the multiple user contacts;
(Retallick [Col 9, Lines 9-16] display on a computer screen... can then be displayed in either summary listing form or in full form, if desired.... identifying indicia of that Contact (name, ID number, address, etc).
Retallick [Col 1, Lines 16-19] having an interface for accessing a database of contact records containing information about a plurality of different contacts (subjects)
Retallick [Col 9, lines 2-3] identified with a particular label (Contacts, Activities or Topics) can be retrieved according to selectable criteria
Retallick [Col 4, Lines 2-3] such as by selecting an item from a pull-down menu or keying from a keyboard)
rendering, the display of the computing device responsive to the user interaction with the first user interface screen that selects the first user contact, a second user interface screen that comprises
(Retallick [Col 9, Lines 9-16] display on a computer screen... can then be displayed in either summary listing form or in full form, if desired.... identifying indicia of that Contact (name, ID number, address, etc).
Retallick [Col 10, Lines 63-67] A Company format Contact will typically have a number of different selectable screens 117 (in the example shown, there are 7 different screens), with each screen having a grouping of different information)
a contact profile for the first user contact and that includes concurrent presentation of: (i) the name of the first user contact;
(Retallick [Col 9, Lines 9-16] display on a computer screen... can then be displayed in either summary listing form or in full form, if desired.... identifying indicia of that Contact (name, ID number, address, etc).
Retallick [Col 2, Lines 30-40] “Subtopic” records...like Topics, identify in some detail the relationship between grouped Activity records for a sub-group of Activity records all related to the same Topic. Since Topics and Subtopics are so similar, wherever Topics are mentioned herein, it is to be understood that the statement applies to Subtopics as well)
(ii) a phone number or email address of the first user contact;
(Retallick [Col 2, Lines 16-17] static information (names, addresses, telephone numbers, etc.))
(iii) a first set of interface elements providing details of the first reminder, including presentation of: an indication of the date of the first reminder;
(Retallick [Col 4, Line 6] Due Date (for ToDo Activity))
- text that describes a first activity;
(Retallick [Col 18, Lines 1-3] Topic 18 has a narrative (Unstructured data) that describes the subject matter about which the Activities 16 of that Topic)
and- a first reminder completion selectable element that is configured to indicate completion of the first as activity upon user selection;
(Retallick [Col 4, Lines 6-7] Start and Complete Date (for Project Activity)
Retallick [Col 4, Lines 22-23] User identified as Recipient which have not yet been marked as completed.)
(iv) a second set of interface elements providing details of a second reminder, including presentation of: - an indication of a date of the second reminder;
(Retallick [Col 18, Lines 15-17] the Recipient offers an alternative completion date, the Status field entry Response is selected. When the completion date is agreed on)
- text that describes a second activity;
(Retallick [Col 2, Lines 29-31] "Topic" records (sometimes referred to simply as Topics) identify in some detail the relationship between grouped Activity records to enable the easy and quick retrieval of only those activities relating to a particular event.
Retallick [Col 18, Lines 1-3] Topic 18 has a narrative (Unstructured data) that describes the subject matter about which the Activities 16 of that Topic)
and- a second reminder completion selectable element that is configured to indicate completion of the second activity upon user selection;
(Retallick [Col 18, Lines 15-17] the Recipient offers an alternative completion date, the Status field entry Response is selected. When the completion date is agreed on
Retallick [Col 4, Lines 22-23] User identified as Recipient which have not yet been marked as completed.)
and a listing of multiple completed activities;
(Retallick [Col 6, Lines 45-50] Various other useful lists (sets of record or sets of parts of records) can be generated from the recorded data of the Activities, Contacts and Topics, such as,.... all of the Activities that have been completed for a customer)
receiving, by the computing device through user interaction with the second user interface screen, user selection of the first reminder selectable interface element that is configured to indicate completion of the first activity upon user selection;
(Retallick [Col 4, Lines 14-20] Every Activity is marked either “pending,” “complete” or “on hold.” The recordable Activity data is both historical (events that have happened) and prospective (events that are scheduled to happen in the future) and are referred to herein collectively as “dynamic data.”
Retallick [Col 6, Lines 39-40] Contact records and associated screens for creating and displaying those records
Retallick [Col 4, Lines 2-3] such as by selecting an item from a pull-down menu or keying from a keyboard)
and performing, by the computing device responsive to the user interaction with the second user interface screen to select the first reminder completion selectable interface element, an onscreen update to the contact profile for the first user contact to automatically convert the first reminder to a completed activity in the listing of the multiple completed activities by:
(Retallick [Col 4, Lines 14-15] Every Activity is marked either “pending,” “complete” or “on hold.”
Retallick [Col 6, Lines 1-8] every Activity item created can, and typically will, be automatically linked to a Contact and/or Topic record. This is accomplished by a default... whereby the newly created Activity is automatically identified with (linked to) the selected Contact record.
Retallick [Col 6, Lines 29-30] the Activity is completed and the Action Activity is automatically added)
(i) removing the presentation of the first reminder from the contact profile for the first user contact;
(Retallick [Col 15, Lines 40-43] Three record icons, “Add,” “Change” and “Delete,” provide convenient click-and-point ability to add, change or delete a record (a common database feature).)
and (ii) adding the first activity to the listing of the multiple completed activities.
(Retallick [Col 4, Lines 14-20] Every Activity is marked either “pending,” “complete” or “on hold.”
Retallick [Col 4, Lines 2-3] such as by selecting an item from a pull-down menu or keying from a keyboard
Retallick [Col 6, Lines 49-50] all of the Activities that have been completed for a customer;)
Retallick does not teach (iv) a second selectable reminder element that indicates that the second user contact does not have a reminder
Okazawa teaches,
(iv) a second selectable reminder element that indicates that the second user contact does not have a reminder
(Okazawa [page 6] Here, as shown in FIG. 8, in the present embodiment, if the completion date is not registered (NULL) as of March 17, an alert may be output.)
It is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the contact notification method of Retallick to incorporate the unset reminder teachings of Okazawa where “completion date is not registered (NULL)” (Okazawa [page 6]). The modification would have been obvious, because it is merely applying a known technique (i.e. unset reminder) to a known concept (i.e. contact notification) ready for improvement to yield predictable result (i.e. “an alert may be output” Okazawa [page 6])
Regarding Claim 22,
Retallick and Okazawa teach the contact reminders of Claim 21 as described earlier.
Retallick teaches,
wherein the contact profile for the first user contact presents additional information for the first user contact in comparison to information for the first user contact that is presented by the listing of the multiple user contacts, the additional information including the listing of the multiple completed activities and a mailing address of the first user contact.
(Retallick [Col 15, Line 62-Col 16, Line13] All groups of summary listings of Activities (ToDo lists, Histories, etc.) are displayed on the screen with an accompanying set of selectable icons:... “Expand.” (See FIGS. 5, 6A, 8, 8A, for example.) For any selected ... “Expand” is available if there are additional choices to present to the User.
Retallick [Col 4, Lines 14-20] Every Activity is marked either “pending,” “complete” or “on hold.”
Retallick [Col 4, Lines 4-8] pre-defined fields representing essential elements of the Activity which, for the company selected as the example, could include: Due Date (for ToDo Activity); Start and Complete Date (for Project Activity);
Retallick [Col 2, Lines 60-64] Contact records typically contain Structured data of the customer's essential identifying and locating information (name, address, telephone, fax, Internet, payment terms, contact person, etc.))
Regarding Claim 23,
Retallick and Okazawa teach the contact reminders of Claim 21 as described earlier.
Retallick teaches,
wherein the listing of the multiple completed activities for the first user contact includes a completed activity representing a call with the first user contact.
(Retallick [Col 4, Lines 14-20] Every Activity is marked either “pending,” “complete” or “on hold.”
Retallick [Col 16, Lines 14-17] If the User wants to know more about one of the Activities listed on the “Actioned” list of FIG. 8A, such as, for example, the second item (a priority B3 outgoing telephone call made on Jan. 12, 1996 to DFS))
Regarding Claim 24,
Retallick and Okazawa teach the contact reminders of Claim 23 as described earlier.
Retallick teaches,
wherein the contact profile for the first user contact includes a selectable interface element that is configured to add a new activity to the listing of the multiple completed activities, including by providing an ability for user input to specify a header for the new activity and details for the new activity.
(Retallick [Col 8, Lines 27] FIG. 6C is a screen to change an Activity;
Retallick [Col 15, Lines 40-43] Three record icons, “Add,” “Change” and “Delete,” provide convenient click-and-point ability to add, change or delete a record (a common database feature).
Retallick [Col 13, Lines 55-57] a Contact record can be modified or added to as new information requires updates to older information.
Retallick [Col 9, Lines 28-29] The ToDo list 21 is a User's primary pointer within the system)
Regarding Claim 25,
Retallick and Okazawa teach the contact reminders of Claim 21 as described earlier.
Retallick teaches,
wherein the listing of the multiple completed activities lists the multiple completed activities in order from most recent to least recent.
(Retallick [Col 4, Lines 14-20] Every Activity is marked either “pending,” “complete” or “on hold.”
Retallick [Col 17, Lines 5-8] permits the various record fields of the present invention to be sorted and reported in ways limited only by the creativity of the User
Retallick [Col 4, Lines 5-12] selected as the example, could include: Due Date (for ToDo Activity); Start and Complete Date (for Project Activity); Date and Time (for Calendar Activity); ... and Priority (A, B, C=importance/1-9=urgency).)
Regarding Claim 29,
Retallick and Okazawa teach the contact reminders of Claim 21 as described earlier.
Retallick teaches,
wherein the contact profile for the first user contact presents a selectable element that is configured to add a third reminder to the contact profile for the first user contact.
(Retallick [Col 19, 60-62] “Requested Date,” “Agreed Date” and “Completed Date.”
Retallick [Col 3, Lines 47-56] Contacts, Activities and Topics as basic building blocks, a variety of useful record sets can be created, including User's ToDo lists which find their genesis in the Activity record. An Activity record can record: (1) events that are short in duration...are referred to herein as “ToDo Activities” (such as telephone calls, letters, faxes etc.); (2) events that need to be done or take place at a precise time ... as “Calendar Activities” (such as meetings, conference calls, etc);)
Regarding Claim 30,
Retallick and Okazawa teach the contact reminders of Claim 21 as described earlier.
Retallick teaches,
the first set of interface elements providing details of the first reminder includes presentation of the first selectable reminder element that indicates the date of the first reminder and that is user selectable to cause presentation of the new interface that enables user input to change the date of the reminder;
(Retallick [Col 9, Lines 38-42] Typically, a User will call up his/her ToDo list 21 using GOTO 17 and display the Activities 16 scheduled for him/her for that day... the date on the ToDo list is simply changed to the desired date.
Retallick [Col 15, Lines 40-42] "Add," "Change" and "Delete," provide convenient click-and-point ability to add, change or delete a record (a common database feature).)
Regarding Claim 31,
Retallick and Okazawa teach the contact reminders of Claim 30 as described earlier.
Retallick teaches,
receiving, by the computing device through user interaction with the listing of the multiple user contacts that is part of the first user interface screen, user selection of the first selectable reminder element that indicates the date of the first reminder; and
(Retallick [Col 17, Lines 17-21] All of the uncompleted Activity-described tasks identifying the same Recipient form a task list for that Recipient. When presented by due dates, these uncompleted tasks form a ToDo list that a User employs each day
Retallick [Col 18, Lines 35-63] prior commitment and negotiation for completion dates...“Agreed Date”... “Completed Date”)
presenting, with the display of the computing device responsive to receiving the user selection of the first selectable reminder element, the new interface that enables user input to change the date of the reminder, add additional details regarding the reminder, and delete the reminder.
(Retallick [Col 9, Lines 38-42] the date on the ToDo list is simply changed to the desired date.
Retallick [Col 15, Lines 40-42] "Add," "Change" and "Delete," provide convenient click-and-point ability to add, change or delete a record (a common database feature).
Retallick [Col 8, Line 26] FIG. 6C is a screen to change an Activity;)
Regarding Claim 32,
Retallick and Okazawa teach the contact reminders of Claim 21 as described earlier.
Retallick teaches,
wherein the first set of interface elements providing details of the first reminder includes, within presentation of a box, the indication of the date of the first reminder, the text that describes the first activity, and the first reminder completion selectable element.
(Retallick [Col 8, Line 24] FIG. 6A is a screen for creating (adding) a new Activity;
Retallick [Col 8, Line 26] FIG. 6C is a screen to change an Activity;
Retallick [Col 18, Lines 1-3] Topic 18 has a narrative (Unstructured data) that describes the subject matter about which the Activities 16 of that Topic)
Claim 35 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 21.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Retallick and Okazawa in view of Seubert (“CONSISTENT SET OF INTERFACES DERIVED FROM A BUSINESS OBJECT MODEL”, U.S. Publication Number: US 20080120129 A1).
Regarding Claim 26,
Retallick and Okazawa teach the contact reminders of Claim 21 as described earlier.
Retallick teaches,
presenting, with the display of the computing device responsive to having received the user selection of the first reminder completion selectable interface element,
(Retallick [Col 10, Lines 64-66] A Company format Contact will typically have a number of different selectable screens 117 (in the example shown, there are 7 different screens)
Retallick [Col 6, Lines 39-41] Contact records and associated screens for creating and displaying those records
Retallick [Col 4, Lines 14-15] Activity is marked either “pending,” “complete” or “on hold.”
Retallick [Col 6, Line 22] having the Action completed)
Retallick does not teach a user prompt to confirm that the presentation of the first reminder is to be removed from the contact profile for the first user contact and added to the listing of the multiple completed activities for the first user contact.
Seubert teaches,
a user prompt to confirm that the presentation of the first reminder is to be removed from the contact profile for the first user contact and added to the listing of the multiple completed activities for the first user contact.
(Seubert [8236] which create reminders
Seubert [11582] MainIndicator can indicate whether or not a contact is emphasized in a group of contacts.
Seubert [0012] utilize consistent interfaces that...respond to the query, create/change/delete/cancel business objects, and/or confirm the particular processing
Seubert [19099] EndDateTime can be the point in time when the approval is finished (may correspond to the last approval task completed)
Seubert [5507] CustomerTransactionDocumentTemplate document on the basis of a message received from a provider, to confirm the creation/change
Seubert [21560] UI when the corresponding BTM task is completed. ... marked as completed by setting the complete indicator to true)
It is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the contact notification method of Retallick to incorporate the confirmation teachings of Seubert to “confirm the particular processing” (Seubert [0012]). The modification would have been obvious, because it is merely applying a known technique (i.e. confirmations) to a known concept (i.e. contact notification) ready for improvement to yield predictable result (i.e. “A confirmation 616 is a binding reply that is generally made to a request 614.” Seubert [0553])
Claims 27 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Retallick and Okazawa in view of Furman (“SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR ELECTRONICALLY CONSENTING TO ENGAGE IN SEXUAL ACTIVITY”, U.S. Publication Number: US 20220156864 A1).
Regarding Claim 27,
Retallick and Okazawa teach the contact reminders of Claim 21 as described earlier.
Retallick does not teach the first reminder was automatically generated by a computing system, responsive to detecting that the first user contact electronically signed a document indicating that the first user contact is interested in discussing one or more topics identified by the document; and the text that describes the first activity indicates to contact the first user contact to discuss the one or more topics identified by the document.
Furman teaches,
the first reminder was automatically generated by a computing system, responsive to detecting that the first user contact electronically signed a document indicating that the first user contact is interested in discussing one or more topics identified by the document.
(Furman [0166] The sexual consent contract may be displayed, and an electronic signature received by way of text message or another form of electronic communication. The verification code may include a question such as, “Are you in face-to-face communication with your potential partner?”
Furman [0097] After the electronic message is sent, the method monitors for a response from the first mobile communication device and/or the second mobile communication device. For example, the consent server may monitor for a response. Responses, whether by text message
Furman [0100] The responses comprising their notes may be sent by text message)
It is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the contact notification method of Retallick to incorporate the document signature teachings of Furman for “Contract and Electronic Signatures.” (Furman [0055]). The modification would have been obvious, because it is merely applying a known technique (i.e. document signature) to a known concept (i.e. contact notification) ready for improvement to yield predictable result (i.e. “The electronic signatures mean that the first person and the second person agree to terms and condition of the sexual consent contract” Furman [0062])
Regarding Claim 34,
Retallick and Okazawa teach the contact reminders of Claim 21 as described earlier.
Retallick teaches,
providing, on a day specified by the date of the first reminder
(Retallick [Col 4, Lines 4-8] pre-defined fields representing essential elements of the Activity which, for the company selected as the example, could include: Due Date (for ToDo Activity); Start and Complete Date (for Project Activity); Date and Time (for Calendar Activity);)
Retallick does not teach a notification to alert a user of the computing device of the first activity identified by the reminder, via the display of the computing device or an email.
Furman teaches,
a notification to alert a user of the computing device of the first activity identified by the reminder, via the display of the computing device or an email.
(Furman [0096] The text message is sent from the consent server to each mobile communication device and displayed on each mobile communication device as SMS, MMS, RCS, or equivalent type of message
Furman [0165] carried out by other forms of electronic communication, such as email, text messages, or a messaging service (for example, WhatsApp, Facebook Messenger, and the like).)
It is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the contact notification method of Retallick to incorporate the email reminder teachings of Furman for “such as email.” (Furman [0165]). The modification would have been obvious, because it is merely applying a known technique (i.e. email reminder) to a known concept (i.e. contact notification) ready for improvement to yield predictable result (i.e. “may be carried out by other forms of electronic communication” Furman [0165])
Claims 36 and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Retallick and Okazawa in view of Berger (“SYSTEM, METHOD AND GRAPHICAL USER INTERFACE FOR MANAGING CONTACTS AND CALENDARS WITHIN AN ONLINE CARD SYSTEM”, U.S. Publication Number: US 20110145101 A1).
Regarding Claim 36,
Retallick and Okazawa teach the contact reminders of Claim 21 as described earlier.
Retallick teaches,
the listing of multiple completed activities are concurrently displayed by the second web page.
(Retallick [Col 13, Lines 65-66] tab “1” might be for all completed sales to that customer;
[Col 6, Lines 45-50] Various other useful lists (sets of record or sets of parts of records) can be generated from the recorded data of the Activities, Contacts and Topics, such as, for example, ...all of the Activities that have been completed for a customer
Retallick [Col 14, Line 34] form a history of completed Activities)
Retallick does not teach the first user interface screen is provided by a first web page, such that the name of the first user contact, the first selectable reminder element, the name of the second user contact, and the second selectable reminder element are concurrently displayed by the first web page; and the second user interface screen is provided by a second web page, such that the name of the first user contact, the phone number or email address of the first user contact, the first set of interface elements providing details of the first reminder, the second set of interface elements providing details of the second reminder.
Berger teaches,
the first user interface screen is provided by a first web page, such that the name of the first user contact, the first selectable reminder element, the name of the second user contact, and the second selectable reminder element are concurrently displayed by the first web page;
(Berger [0035] a Web-based graphical user interface (“GUI”) for managing ...contacts, calendars, reminders
Berger [0051] a Web-based GUI for selecting among a list of contacts
Berger [0011] a reminder list comprised a plurality of reminder entries, each of the reminder entries identifying an upcoming event...[0073] end user is provided with the ability to add smart groups based on any date-based variable associated with the contacts database
Berger [0127] Once the name and relationship of the recipient have been selected]
[0073] The GUI includes a first region 810 for listing various contact groups )
and the second user interface screen is provided by a second web page, such that the name of the first user contact, the phone number or email address of the first user contact, the first set of interface elements providing details of the first reminder, the second set of interface elements providing details of the second reminder,
(Berger [0073] the smart groups include a “reminders” group which includes reminders for contacts and/or households...a listing of contacts
Berger [0081] In addition, a “reminder” region 1315 is provided within the contact details window to provide reminders of upcoming dates such as birthdays and anniversaries for contacts within the user's contacts list...will transmit an email, instant message, or SMS message to remind the end user of the event and/or will update the user's calendar with the event.
Berger [0091] “First name” is selected
Berger [0067] same email, phone, date, OR mailing address
Berger [0074] Multiple contacts and/or households may be highlighted... the household 901 is displayed within the second region 811 of the GUI along with other contacts)
It is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the contact notification method of Retallick to incorporate the concurrent second user interface screen and second web page teachings of Berger “within the second region 811 of the GUI” (Berger [0074]). The modification would have been obvious, because it is merely applying a known technique (i.e. concurrent second user interface screen / second web page) to a known concept (i.e. contact notification) ready for improvement to yield predictable result (i.e. “Multiple contacts and/or households may be highlighted in region” Berger [0074])
Regarding Claim 37,
Retallick and Okazawa teach the contact reminders of Claim 21 as described earlier.
Retallick teaches,
the first set of interface elements providing details of the first reminder in the second user interface screen includes the first selectable reminder element that indicates the date of the first reminder and that was presented in the first user interface screen; the second set of interface elements providing details of the second reminder in the second user interface screen includes a second selectable reminder element that indicates the date of the second reminder;
(Retallick [Col 10, Line 57 to Col 11, Line 1] a Contact record 116 can advantageously have multiple formats for recording different but related information.....A Company format Contact will typically have a number of different selectable screens....with each screen having a grouping of different information (such as contact information.... unstructured data (notes), etc.).
Retallick [Col 2, Lines 16-17] static information (names, addresses, telephone numbers, etc.)
Retallick [Col 19, Lines 60-63] in that the “Due Date” has been replaced by the three data fields: “Requested Date,” “Agreed Date” and “Completed Date.”)
Retallick does not teach the method comprises presenting the first selectable reminder element that indicates the date of the first reminder, rather than the second selectable reminder element, in the first user interface screen, based on a determination by a computing system that the date of the first reminder is before the date of the second reminder.
Berger teaches,
the method comprises presenting the first selectable reminder element that indicates the date of the first reminder, rather than the second selectable reminder element, in the first user interface screen, based on a determination by a computing system that the date of the first reminder is before the date of the second reminder.
(Berger [0073] the smart groups include a “reminders” group which includes reminders for contacts and/or households arranged in chronological order;....when the “upcoming birthdays” group is selected in region 810, a listing of contacts is provided in region 811 in a chronological order of upcoming birthdays (e.g., with the contact with the first upcoming birthday at the top of the list).)
It is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the contact notification method of Retallick to incorporate the reminder date prioritization of Berger that is “arranged in chronological order” (Berger [0073]). The modification would have been obvious, because it is merely applying a known technique (i.e. reminder date prioritization) to a known concept (i.e. contact notification) ready for improvement to yield predictable result (i.e. “chronological order of upcoming birthdays (e.g., with the contact with the first upcoming birthday at the top of the list)” Berger [0073])
Response to Remarks
Applicant's arguments filed on August 13, 2026, have been fully considered and Examiner’s remarks to Applicant’s amendments follow.
Response Remarks on Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
The Applicant states:
“Example 37 discusses how Example Claim 1 … does integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and is therefore eligible … Applicant respectfully submits that amended independent claim 21 imposes meaningful limits on any purported abstract idea (unlike ineligible Example Claim 3), and that amended independent claim 21 recites a "specific manner" of interacting with a user interface and "provides a specific improvement over prior systems" (like eligible Example Claim 1), therefore integrating any purported judicial exception into a practical application…. amended independent claim 21 recites how a user interface changes upon user interaction with a reminder completion element to "automatically convert the first reminder to a completed activity in the listing of the multiple completed activities." … Indeed, providing each reminder in the contact profile with its own "reminder completion element" allows for a single user interaction to indicate completion of the corresponding reminder (e.g., rather than having to first select a reminder and then select a separate button to indicate completion of the selected reminder). Second, automatically moving a completed reminder to a completed activities listing in the contact profile (e.g., rather than simply removing the completed reminder) reduces any need for a user to manually log a completed activity. "
Examiner responds:
Assuming the Applicant’s amendments recite a "specific manner", which the Examiner does not acquiesce, the Examiner cannot discern a technological improvement. The results of "automatically convert the first reminder to a completed activity in the listing of the multiple completed activities" that “allows for a single user interaction to indicate completion of the corresponding reminder (e.g., rather than having to first select a reminder and then select a separate button to indicate completion of the selected reminder)” and “automatically moving a completed reminder to a completed activities listing in the contact profile (e.g., rather than simply removing the completed reminder) reduces any need for a user to manually log a completed activity" do not appear to be a technological improvement beyond traditional systems.
Rather, they read as “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” which is an abstract ideas. Automating a manual process reads as invoking computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process or to automate a manual or mental process. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) - Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception: Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Similarly, "claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Please review MPEP 2106.05(a) that discusses improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field, particularly as it relates to speed, resource efficiency, and enhanced security.
The rejection under 35 USC § 101 remains
Response Remarks on Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
Applicant's amendments required the application of new/additional prior art.
Applicant’s remarks regarding the rejection made under 35 USC § 102 are rendered moot by the introduction of additional prior art.
Applicant’s amendments alter the scope of the original claimed invention and the rejection of claims under 35 USC § 102 no longer applies. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration of newly amended claims, a new grounds of rejection is made under 35 USC § 103.
Therefore, the rejection under 35 USC § 103 remains.
Prior Art Cited But Not Applied
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Underwood (“BUSINESS COMPONENTS FRAMEWORK”, U.S. Patent Number: US 6601233 B1) proposes generating software based on business components. A plurality of logical business components in a business are first defined with each business component having a plurality of capabilities. Next, functional interrelationships are identified between the logical business components. Code modules are then generated to carry out the capabilities of the logical business components and the functional interrelationships between the logical business components, wherein the code modules represent a transformation of the logical business components to their physical implementation, while ensuring the capabilities that are carried out by each code module are essentially unique to the logical business component associated with the code module. Next, the functional aspects of the code modules and the functional relationships of the code modules are tested. The code modules are then subsequently deployed in an e-commerce environment.
Al-Abdulqader (“SYSTEM, PROGRAM PRODUCT, AND METHODS FOR MANAGING CONTRACT PROCUREMENT”, U.S. Publication Number: US 20070016514 A1) proposes to facilitate contract procurement and contract management through an online contract procurement and management website over a computer network, program product, and associated methods are provided. The system includes an electronic contracting network server accessible to a computer network, a database accessible to the electronic contracting network server through the computer network, a plurality of plurality of electronic contracting entity member user computers in communication with the electronic contracting network server through the computer network, and a plurality of potential contractor member user computers also in communication with the electronic contracting network server through the computer network. The system also includes an electronic contracting program product stored in the memory of the electronic contracting network server and positioned to perform various contract procurement and contract management functions.
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 extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHINEDU EKECHUKWU whose telephone number is (571)272-4493. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9 AM ET to 3:30 PM ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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, Christine Tran, can be reached on (571) 272-8103. 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.
/C.E./Examiner, Art Unit 3695
/CHRISTINE M Tran/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3695
