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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the application 19/170,680 filed on
04/04/2025.
Claims 1-20 are pending in the application.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of Applicant's claim for domestic priority to which is a CON of 18/668,434 05/20/2024 PAT 12,294,560 which is a CON of 18/450,447 08/16/2023 PAT 12,021,804 which claims benefit of 63/401, 114 08/25/2022.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 (hereinafter "examined claim") are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 (hereinafter as "patent claim") of U.S. Patent No. 12,294,560 B2 (US Application No. 18/668,434). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the instant application are merely obvious variations of the claims in the U.S. Patent No. 12,294,560 B2 (US Application No. 18/668,434 as outlined in the table below.
Examined claim (Application No. 19,170,680)
Patent claim of U.S. Patent No. 12,294,560 B2 (US Application No. 18/668,434).
1. A method comprising:
receiving a set of messages, each message associated with an account of a user and comprising content corresponding to a digital asset;
analyzing the set of messages, and
determining a type of digital asset within each message of the set of messages;
grouping, based on the determined type of digital asset, the set of messages, the grouping comprising creating a cluster related to each of the types of digital assets;
storing, within a location associated with the user account, the groupings of messages; and
enabling, from the location within the user account, access to the digital assets from the grouping of messages.
1. A method comprising:
receiving a set of messages, each message associated with an account of a user and comprising content corresponding to a digital asset;
analyzing the set of messages, and
determining a type of digital asset within each message of the set of messages;
grouping, based on the determined type of digital asset, the set of messages, the grouping comprising creating a cluster related to each of the types of digital assets;
storing, within a location associated with the user account, the groupings of messages;
enabling, from the location within the user account, access to the digital assets from the grouping of messages;
generating a mapping rule for the groupings of messages, each mapping rule comprising information related to the digital assets within each grouping; and providing at least one digital asset to a third party system based on a respective mapping rule.
8. A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium tangibly encoded with computer-executable instructions, that when executed by a processor, perform a method comprising:
receiving a set of messages, each message associated with an account of a user and comprising content corresponding to a digital asset;
analyzing the set of messages, and determining a type of digital asset within each message of the set of messages;
grouping, based on the determined type of digital asset, the set of messages, the grouping comprising creating a cluster related to each of the types of digital assets;
storing, within a location associated with the user account, the groupings of messages; and
enabling, from the location within the user account, access to the digital assets from the grouping of messages.
14. A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium tangibly encoded with computer-executable instructions, that when executed by a device, performs a method comprising:
receiving a set of messages, each message associated with an account of a user and comprising content corresponding to a digital asset;
analyzing the set of messages, and determining a type of digital asset within each message of the set of messages;
grouping, based on the determined type of digital asset, the set of messages, the grouping comprising creating a cluster related to each of the types of digital assets;
storing, within a location associated with the user account, the groupings of messages;
enabling, from the location within the user account, access to the digital assets from the grouping of messages;
generating a mapping rule for the groupings of messages, each mapping rule comprising information related to the digital assets within each grouping; and providing at least one digital asset to a third party system based on a respective mapping rule.
15. A system comprising: a processor configured to:
receive a set of messages, each message associated with an account of a user and comprising content corresponding to a digital asset;
analyze the set of messages, and determine a type of digital asset within each message of the set of messages;
group, based on the determined type of digital asset, the set of messages, the grouping comprising creating a cluster related to each of the types of digital assets;
store, within a location associated with the user account, the groupings of messages; and
enable, from the location within the user account, access to the digital assets from the grouping of messages.
8. A device comprising: a processor configured to:
receive a set of messages, each message associated with an account of a user and comprising content corresponding to a digital asset;
analyze the set of messages, and determine a type of digital asset within each message of the set of messages;
group, based on the determined type of digital asset, the set of messages, the grouping comprising creating a cluster related to each of the types of digital assets;
store, within a location associated with the user account, the groupings of messages;
enable, from the location within the user account, access to the digital assets from the grouping of messages;
generate a mapping rule for the groupings of messages, each mapping rule comprising information related to the digital assets within each grouping; and provide at least one digital asset to a third party system based on a respective mapping rule.
Although the claims 1, 8 and 15 (hereinafter "examined claim" Application No. 19,170,680) at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the limitations of claims 1, 8 and 15 of the examined application are disclosed by the limitations of claims 1, 14 and 8 (hereinafter as "patent claim") of US Patent U.S. Patent No. 12,294,560 B2 (US Application No. 18/668,434), and as such is unpatentable for obvious-type double patenting.
Instant Application Claim 2 recites substantially the same limitation as the patented claim 7 of U.S. Patent No. US Patent No. 12,294,560 B2 US Application No. 18/668,434, therefore the application claim 2 is anticipated by the patented claim 7.
Instant Application Claims 3-7 recite substantially the same limitation as the patented claims 2-6 of U.S. Patent No. 12,294,560 B2 US Application No. 18/668,434, therefore the application claims 3-7 are anticipated by the patented claims 2-6.
Instant Application Claim 9 recites substantially the same limitation as the patented claim 18 of U.S. Patent No. US Patent No. 12,294,560 B2 US Application No. 18/668,434, therefore the application claim 9 is anticipated by the patented claim 18.
Instant Application Claims 10-11 recite substantially the same limitation as the patented claim 15 of U.S. Patent No. US Patent No. 12,294,560 B2 US Application No. 18/668,434, therefore the application claims 10-11 are is anticipated by the patented claim 15.
Instant Application Claim 12 recites substantially the same limitation as the patented claim 16 of U.S. Patent No. US Patent No. 12,294,560 B2 US Application No. 18/668,434, therefore the application claim 12 is anticipated by the patented claim 16.
Instant Application Claims 13-14 recite substantially the same limitation as the patented claim 17 of U.S. Patent No. US Patent No. 12,294,560 B2 US Application No. 18/668,434, therefore the application claims 13-14 are is anticipated by the patented claim 17.
Instant Application Claim 16 recites substantially the same limitation as the patented claim 13 of U.S. Patent No. US Patent No. 12,294,560 B2 US Application No. 18/668,434, therefore the application claim 16 is anticipated by the patented claim 13.
.
Instant Application Claims 17-20 recite substantially the same limitation as the patented claims 9-12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,294,560 B2 US Application No. 18/668,434, therefore the application claims 17-20 are anticipated by the patented claims 9-12.
Therefore, claims 1-20 (hereinafter "examined claim" US Application No. 19,170,680) is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 (hereinafter as "patent claim") of US Patent 12,294,560 B2 US Application No. 18/668,434. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the instant application are merely obvious variations of the claims 1-18 (hereinafter as "patent claim") of US Patent 12,294,560 B2 US Application No. 18/668,434, and as such is unpatentable for obvious- type double patenting.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5, 8-12 and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Raviv et al. (US 2020/0202388 A1, hereinafter “Raviv”).
Regarding Claim 1, Raviv teaches a method comprising: receiving a set of messages, each message associated with an account of a user and comprising content corresponding to a digital asset ([paragraph 0007, 0103-0105, 0111] describes receiving a set of messages and message addressed to a user's inbox and message associated with a user account comprising message includes content from a commercial entity corresponding to a digital coupon (e.g. a digital asset));
analyzing the set of messages, and determining a type of digital asset within each message of the set of messages ([paragraph 0106-0112] describes the set of messages are analyzed to determine a product type of the digital coupon (e.g. the digital asset));
grouping, based on the determined type of digital asset, the set of messages, the grouping comprising creating a cluster related to each of the types of digital assets ([paragraph 0053, 0113, 0116-0117] describes grouping the set of messages and grouping comprising messages related to a product preference type of the user are tagged with the product type (e.g. cluster) related to each of the types of digital coupons (e.g. the digital assets));
storing, within a location associated with the user account, the groupings of messages (paragraph 0073, 0119, 0121-0122, Fig 7B] describes storing a location and watching view associated with the user account and product preference types (e.g. the grouping) of messages); and
enabling, from the location within the user account, access to the digital assets from the grouping of messages ([paragraph 0012, 0122] describes the + icon enables the user to select and open the digital content (e.g. the digital assets) to retain the deal being offered).
Regarding claim 2, Raviv teaches the method, further comprising: receiving a request from a user in association with a service provided by a third party system, wherein the at least one digital asset is provided in accordance with the received request ([paragraph 0094-0095, 0111] describes receiving a request from a user in association with a third party service providers (e.g., Groupon®, Walmart®, REI®, Home Depot®, EBates®, for example) that provide third party deals or digital coupons to users in a manner based on messages and digital coupon (e.g. digital asset) is provided to the user based on received request).
Regarding claim 3, Raviv teaches the method, further comprising: detecting activity of the user, the activity corresponding to a context ([Fig 6A, paragraph 0082] describes the user opens an email message (e.g. detecting the user activity) and the user is viewing a particular product type message (e.g. the activity corresponding to a context));
analyzing, based on the context, the groupings of messages ([paragraph 0084, 0111] describes based on the context/particular type of product message being viewed, another product message is identified from the user’s inbox that is a related product type in the groupings of messages); and
identifying a digital asset from the grouping that corresponds to the context ([paragraph 0082-0084] describes identifying a digital coupon (e.g. a digital asset) i.e. deal such as coupon for 70% off from the grouping that corresponds to the context).
Regarding claim 4, Raviv teaches the method, further comprising: providing the identified digital asset in response to the detection of the activity ([paragraph 0082-0084,Fig 6A] describes providing the identified digital coupon (e.g. digital asset) when the user opens the mail message a deal portion (Fig. 6, 606) is also displayed),
wherein the enabled access comprises the provided identified digital asset ([paragraph 0121-0122] describes the existing coupons retrieved from the user’s inbox also exist in the watching view where access to the coupon is enabled).
Regarding claim 5, Raviv teaches he method , further comprising: analyzing metadata associated with each of the set of messages, the metadata providing information indicating content within a respective message within the set of messages, wherein the determination of the type of digital asset within each message is based on the analysis of the metadata ([paragraph 0108-0112] describes analyzing specific fields of the message such as body/sender/multimedia portions etc.(e.g. metadata) associated with each of the set of messages and specific fields of the message such as body/sender/multimedia portions etc.(e.g. metadata) providing information indicating content (i.e. type of information) within a respective message within the set of messages and determination of the type of digital coupon (e.g. digital asset) within each message is based on the analysis of the specific fields of the message such as body/sender/multimedia portions etc.(e.g. metadata)).
Regarding claim 8, this claim contains limitations found within that of claim 1 and the same rationale to rejection is used except for the claim 8 a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium tangibly encoded with computer-executable instructions, that when executed by a processor, perform a method. Raviv teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium tangibly encoded with computer-executable instructions, that when executed by a processor, perform a method ([paragraph 0014] describes non-transitory computer-readable storage medium has tangibly stored thereon, or tangibly encoded thereon, computer readable instructions that when executed by a device (e.g., application server, email server, ad server, content server and/or client device, and the like) cause at least one processor to perform a method).
. Regarding claims 9-12, these claims contain limitations found within that of claims 2-5 and the same rationale to rejections are used.
Regarding claim 15, this claim contains limitations found within that of claim 1 and the same rationale to rejection is used except for the claim 8 a system comprising: a processor configured to. Raviv teaches a system comprising: a processor configured to ([paragraph 0014] describes a system comprising at least one processor configured to perform a method).
Regarding claims 16-19, these claims contain limitations found within that of claims 2-5 and the same rationale to rejections are used.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 6-7, 13-14, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raviv et al. (US 2020/0202388 A1, hereinafter “Raviv”); in view of Grabovitch et al. (US 10,616,161, hereinafter “Grabovitch”).
Regarding claim 6, Raviv teaches the method, further comprising: analyzing each of the set of messages ([paragraph 0106-0110] describes the set of messages are analyzed to determine a product type of the digital coupon (e.g. digital asset)); and
extracting, the digital assets from within each message in the set of messages ([paragraph 0111] describes extracting the digital coupons (e.g. digital assets) from message in the set of messages); and
storing the extracted digital assets ([paragraph 0121] describes storing in user account the extracted digital coupons (e.g. digital assets)).
Raviv fails to teach wherein analyzing a message structure associated with each of the set of messages; wherein extracting, based on the message structure within each of the set of messages, the digital assets from within each message in the set of messages; wherein storing, within the user account, the extracted digital assets.
However, Grabovitch teaches wherein analyzing a message structure associated with each of the set of messages ([Fig. 4, 402-416; Column 14, line 15-Column 16, line 21] describes analyzing DOM hierarchy of a message (e.g. message structure) associated with each of the set of messages);
wherein extracting, based on the message structure within each of the set of messages, the digital assets from within each message in the set of messages ([Fig. 4, 418; Column 16, lines 22-28] describes extracting based on DOM hierarchy of a message (e.g. message structure) includes entity digital content such as coupons from within each message in the set of messages);
wherein storing, within the user account, the extracted digital assets ([Column 16, lines 22-28] describes storing, within the user account (i.e. database associated with user’s inbox) the extracted digital coupons (e.g. digital assets)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Raviv to include wherein analyzing a message structure associated with each of the set of messages; wherein extracting, based on the message structure within each of the set of messages, the digital assets from within each message in the set of messages; wherein storing, within the user account, the extracted digital assets as taught by Grabovitch. One ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize the teachings of Raviv in the Grabovitch system in order to provide an improved message extraction framework that can be applied without any pre-learning/training. (Grabovitch: [Column 1, lines 63 – Column 2, line 1]).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Raviv and Grabovitch teaches the method, wherein the enabled access is provided via the stored extracted digital assets (Raviv: [paragraph 0122] describes enabling the user account (i.e. database associated with user’s inbox) via the extracted digital coupons (e.g. digital assets)).
Regarding claims 13-14, these claims contain limitations found within that of claims 6-7 and the same rationale to rejections are used.
Regarding claim 20, Raviv teaches the system, wherein the processor is further configured to: analyze each of the set of messages ([paragraph 0106-0110] describes the set of messages are analyzed to determine a product type of the digital coupon (e.g. digital asset)); and
extract, the digital assets from within each message in the set of messages ([paragraph 0111] describes extracting the digital coupons (e.g. digital assets) from message in the set of messages); and
store, the extracted digital assets ([paragraph 0121] describes storing in user account the extracted digital coupons (e.g. digital assets));
wherein the enabled access is provided via the stored extracted digital assets ([paragraph 0122] describes enabling the user account (i.e. database associated with user’s inbox) via the extracted digital coupons (e.g. digital assets)).
Raviv fails to teach wherein analyze a message structure associated with each of the set of messages; wherein extract, based on the message structure within each of the set of messages, the digital assets from within each message in the set of messages; wherein store, within the user account, the extracted digital assets.
However, Grabovitch teaches wherein analyze a message structure associated with each of the set of messages ([Fig. 4, 402-416; Column 14, line 15-Column 16, line 21] describes analyzing DOM hierarchy of a message (e.g. message structure) associated with each of the set of messages);
wherein extract, based on the message structure within each of the set of messages, the digital assets from within each message in the set of messages ([Fig. 4, 418; Column 16, lines 22-28] describes extracting based on DOM hierarchy of a message (e.g. message structure) includes entity digital content such as coupons from within each message in the set of messages);
wherein store, within the user account, the extracted digital assets ([Column 16, lines 22-28] describes storing, within the user account (i.e. database associated with user’s inbox) the extracted digital coupons (e.g. digital assets)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Raviv to include wherein analyze a message structure associated with each of the set of messages; wherein extract, based on the message structure within each of the set of messages, the digital assets from within each message in the set of messages; wherein store, within the user account, the extracted digital assets as taught by Grabovitch. One ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize the teachings of Raviv in the Grabovitch system in order to provide an improved message extraction framework that can be applied without any pre-learning/training. (Grabovitch: [Column 1, lines 63 – Column 2, line 1]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
- ARASU et al., US 2021/0036980 A1, Disclosed are systems and methods for improving interactions with and between computers in content providing.
- GOENKA et al., US 2020/0134101 A1, Disclosed are systems and methods for improving interactions and searching and/or hosting systems supported by or configured with devices, servers and/or platforms.
- RAMALINGAM et al., US 2019/0173825 A1, Disclosed is a system and method for email management.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MEHULKUMAR J SHAH whose telephone number is (571)272-1072. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 6:05 am-3:55 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, TONIA DOLLINGER can be reached at 571-272-4170. 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.
/M.J.S/Examiner, Art Unit 2459
/TONIA L DOLLINGER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2459
Prosecution Insights