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 Non-Final Office Action in response to application 19/072,474 entitled "SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR IMPROVED AGENT-CONSUMER COMMUNICATION" originally filed on May 6, 2025, with claims 21 to 35 pending.
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 21-35 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 21-35 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 interacting with a …specific to a contact record, comprising:
presenting, with a display …a first …that comprises a listing of multiple user contacts, the listing of the multiple user contacts including a text name for each user contact of the multiple user contacts;
receiving, …through interaction with the first …user selection of a selected user contact from among the multiple user contacts;
presenting, with the display …responsive to having received the user selection of the selected user contact, a second …that comprises a contact profile for the selected user contact, with the contact profile for the selected user contact including presentation of:
(i) a name of the selected user contact;
(ii) a reminder that includes presentation of:
- an indication of a date of the reminder;
- a first selectable element that is configured to change the date of the reminder upon user selection; and
- a second selectable element that is configured to indicate completion of an activity identified by the reminder upon user selection; and (iii) a listing of multiple completed activities;
receiving,.. through interaction with the display, user selection of the second selectable interface element that is configured to indicate completion of the activity identified by the reminder upon user selection; and
updating, with the display …responsive to having received the user selection of the second selectable interface element, the presentation of the contact profile for the selected user contact by:
(i) removing the presentation of the reminder from the contact profile for the selected user contact; and
(ii) adding the activity identified by the reminder 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 “receiving... user selection”, “change the date of the reminder” and “updating...the presentation of the contact profile” recite Managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as Managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people 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] [user interface] [of a computing device][user interface screen] [by the computing device] [user interface screen][of the computing device] [user interface screen] [by the computing device] [of the computing device]:
merely applying computer processing, storage, and networking 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 22-26:
“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 28-29:
“computer-implemented”: merely applying computer processing, networking, and display technologies as a tool to perform an abstract idea
Claims 30-31:
“computer-implemented”, “user interface screen”: merely applying computer processing, networking, and display technologies as a tool to perform an abstract idea
Claims 32-33:
“computer-implemented”: 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)
Independent Claim 35 recites:
“…that include:
presenting, …that comprises a listing of multiple user contacts, the listing of the multiple user contacts including a text name for each user contact of the multiple user contacts;
receiving, …through interaction … user selection of a selected user contact from among the multiple user contacts;
presenting, …responsive to having received the user selection of the selected user contact, a second …that comprises a contact profile for the selected user contact, with the contact profile for the selected user contact including presentation of:
(i) a name of the selected user contact;
(ii) a reminder that includes presentation of:
- an indication of a date of the reminder;
- a first selectable element that is configured to change the date of the reminder upon user selection; and
- a second selectable element that is configured to indicate completion of an activity identified by the reminder upon user selection; and (iii) a listing of multiple completed activities;
receiving, …through interaction …user selection of the second selectable interface element that is configured to indicate completion of the activity identified by the reminder upon user selection; and
updating, …responsive to having received the user selection of the second selectable interface element, the presentation of the contact profile for the selected user contact by:
(i) removing the presentation of the reminder from the contact profile for the selected user contact; and
(ii) adding the activity identified by the reminder 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 “receiving... user selection”, “change the date of the reminder” and “updating...the presentation of the contact profile” recite Managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as Managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people 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:
[One or more computer-readable devices including instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause a computing device to perform operations][with a display of the computing device], [a first user interface screen] [by the computing device] [with the first user interface screen],[with the display of the computing device] [user interface screen][by the computing device] [with the display][with the display of the computing device]:
merely applying computer processing, storage, and networking 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 35 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)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 21-25, 28-33, and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Retallick ("METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR IMPROVED CONTACT AND ACTIVITY MANAGEMENT AND PLANNING", U.S. Patent Number: US 6442567 B1).
Regarding Claim 21,
Retallick teaches,
A computer-implemented method of interacting with a user interface specific to a contact record,
(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 2, Line 41] Contact records, Activity records and Topic records)
comprising: presenting, with 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 for each user contact of 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).)
receiving, by the computing device through interaction with the first user interface screen, user selection of a selected 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 6, Lines 4-7] a Contact record be selected when an Activity record is created, whereby the newly created Activity is automatically identified with (linked to) the selected Contact record.)
presenting, with the display of the computing device responsive to having received the user selection of the selected 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 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 second user interface screen that comprises a contact profile for the selected user contact, with the contact profile for the selected user contact including presentation of: (i) a name of the selected user contact;
(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 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 4, Lines 2-3] such as by selecting an item from a pull-down menu or keying from a keyboard)
(ii) a reminder that includes presentation of: - an indication of a date of the 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);
Examiner correlates the Activity to the claimed reminder )
- a first selectable element that is configured to change the date of the reminder upon user selection; and
(Retallick [Col 8, Lines 27] FIG. 6C is a screen to change an Activity;
Retallick [Col 9, Lines 42-43] the date on the ToDo list is simply changed to the desired date
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).)
- a second selectable element that is configured to indicate completion of an activity identified by the reminder upon user selection;
(Retallick [Col 4, Lines 6-7] Start and Complete Date (for Project Activity);
Retallick [Col 4, Lines 14-15] Every Activity is marked either “pending,” “complete” or “on hold.”)
and (iii) a listing of multiple completed activities;
(Retallick [Col 6, Lines 49-50] all of the Activities that have been completed for a customer;)
receiving, by the computing device through interaction with the display, user selection of the second selectable interface element that is configured to indicate completion of the activity identified by the reminder upon user selection; and
(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 4, Lines 2-3] such as by selecting an item from a pull-down menu or keying from a keyboard)
updating, with the display of the computing device responsive to having received the user selection of the second selectable interface element, the presentation of the contact profile for the selected user contact by:
(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 13, Lines 13-15] Contact record 31 (Company) displayed on a computer screen 32 includes various Structured data fields 33 identified by labels)
(i) removing the presentation of the reminder from the contact profile for the selected user contact; and
(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).)
(ii) adding the activity identified by the reminder 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 6, Lines 49-50] all of the Activities that have been completed for a customer;)
Regarding Claim 22,
Retallick teaches the contact reminders of Claim 21 as described earlier.
Retallick teaches,
wherein the contact profile for the selected user contact presents additional information for the selected user contact in comparison to information for the selected 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 selected 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 teaches the contact reminders of Claim 21 as described earlier.
Retallick teaches,
wherein the listing of the multiple completed activities for the selected user contact includes a completed activity representing a call with the selected 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 teaches the contact reminders of Claim 23 as described earlier.
Retallick teaches,
wherein the contact profile for the selected user contact includes a third 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 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 teaches 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 28,
Retallick teaches the contact reminders of Claim 21 as described earlier.
Retallick teaches,
wherein the reminder includes presentation of text that identifies the activity.
(Retallick [Col 16, Lines 22-24] Activity listing (see FIG. 8A) to remind the User of the Contact with which the Activities being viewed are identified.
Retallick [Col 2, Lines 12-18] Contact records (sometimes referred to simply as Contacts) are typically customer records or project records (although they may be any other set of records to which Activities can be logically related) where, inter alia, relatively static information (names, addresses, telephone numbers, etc.) is stored
Retallick [Col 2, Lines 42-45] Activity records and Topic records advantageously include two data structures: (1) data entered into named fields with a limited numbers of characters (e.g., name, address, subject matter, date, contact person, etc.) which data is, for convenience, referred to herein as “Structured” data)
Regarding Claim 29,
Retallick teaches the contact reminders of Claim 21 as described earlier.
Retallick teaches,
wherein the contact profile for the selected user contact presents a third selectable element that is configured to add a second reminder to the contact profile for the selected 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 teaches the contact reminders of Claim 21 as described earlier.
Retallick teaches,
the first selectable element that is presented as part of the contact profile and that is configured to change the date of the reminder upon user selection includes a visual depiction of the date of the reminder; and
(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).)
the listing of the multiple user contacts that is presented by the first user interface screen includes presentation of content specific to each of the multiple user contacts, including for the selected user contact: (i) the text name for the selected user contact, and
(Retallick [Col 2, Lines 42-44] (1) data entered into named fields with a limited numbers of characters (e.g., name, address, subject matter, date, contact person, etc.)
Retallick [Col 14, Lines 4-9] The Structured data field 33 associated with the label “Person” can be selected to reveal the names of all the individuals for whom there are Person Contact records associated with the Company Contact record. Selecting a particular individual will bring forward the Person Contact record for that person.)
(ii) another selectable element that includes a visual depiction of the date of the reminder and that is configured to change the date of the reminder upon user selection.
(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 teaches the contact reminders of Claim 30 as described earlier.
Retallick teaches,
receiving, by the computing device through interaction with the listing of the multiple user contacts that is presented by the first user interface screen, user selection of the another selectable element that includes the visual depiction of the date of the 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 another selectable element, a box or new interface screen 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 teaches the contact reminders of Claim 21 as described earlier.
Retallick teaches,
wherein the reminder that is presented as part of the contact profile for the selected user profile comprises, within presentation of a box, a presentation of the indication of the date of the reminder, the presentation of the first selectable element, and the presentation of the second 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;)
Regarding Claim 33,
Retallick teaches the contact reminders of Claim 32 as described earlier.
Retallick teaches,
wherein the presentation of the contact profile includes a second reminder that comprises a presentation of: - an indication of a date of the second reminder;
(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);)
- another first selectable element that is configured to change the date of the second reminder upon user selection; and
(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).)
- another second selectable element that is configured to indicate completion of an activity identified by the second reminder upon user selection.
(Retallick [Col 18, Lines 35-63] prior commitment and negotiation for completion dates...“Agreed Date”... “Completed Date”)
Claim 35 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 21.
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.
Claim 26 is 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 Seubert (“CONSISTENT SET OF INTERFACES DERIVED FROM A BUSINESS OBJECT MODEL”, U.S. Publication Number: US 20080120129 A1).
Regarding Claim 26,
Retallick teaches 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 second 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 does not teach a user prompt to confirm that the presentation of the reminder is to be removed from the contact profile and added to the listing of the multiple completed activities.
Seubert teaches,
a user prompt to confirm that the presentation of the reminder is to be removed from the contact profile and added to the listing of the multiple completed activities.
(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 ("METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR IMPROVED CONTACT AND ACTIVITY MANAGEMENT AND PLANNING", U.S. Patent Number: US 6442567 B1)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 teaches the contact reminders of Claim 21 as described earlier.
Retallick does not teach the reminder was automatically generated by a computing system, responsive to detecting that the selected user contact electronically signed a document indicating that the selected user contact is interested in discussing one or more topics identified by the document; and the reminder includes text indicating to contact the selected user contact to discuss the one or more topics identified by the document.
Furman teaches,
the reminder was automatically generated by a computing system, responsive to detecting that the selected user contact electronically signed a document indicating that the selected user contact is interested in discussing one or more topics identified by the document; and the reminder includes text indicating to contact the selected user contact to discuss the 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 teaches the contact reminders of Claim 21 as described earlier.
Retallick teaches,
providing, on a day specified by the date of the 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 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 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])
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
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 10am to 4pm 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
Prosecution Insights