Detailed Action
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-20 are pending in the application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on April 22, 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, and accordingly, the IDS has been considered by the examiner.
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 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,316,714 (“Patent ‘714”).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are anticipated by claims of Patent ‘714.
Instant Application
US Patent No. 12,316,714
1. A method, comprising:
generating a scheduled notification representing an upcoming occurrence of a future event associated with a user account;
1. A computer-implemented method, comprising:
generating a scheduled notification representing an upcoming occurrence of a future event associated with a user account;
accessing, using a machine learning model trained on patterns associated with user behaviors, a behavioral profile of the user account;
accessing, by a machine learning model trained on patterns associated with user behaviors, a behavioral profile of the user account that corresponds to one or more activities associated with the user account that are determined using device telemetry;
generating, using the machine learning model, a notification rule for the user account based on the behavioral profile;
generating, by the machine learning model, a notification rule for the user account based on the behavioral profile, wherein the notification rule adjusts notification preferences for the user account corresponding to the scheduled notification, wherein the notification preferences indicate alterations to the scheduled notification based on circumstances corresponding to the future event;
updating the behavioral profile to include the notification rule; and
presenting the notification rule to a user of the user account;
updating the behavioral profile to include the notification rule when the user provides approval of the notification rule; and
prior to initiation of the future event, modifying the scheduled notification based on the notification rule.
prior to initiation of the future event, modifying the scheduled notification based on the notification rule and the circumstances corresponding to the future event.
Claims 2-8 are unpatentable over claims 2-8 of Patent ‘714.
Claims 9-16 are unpatentable over claims 9-16 of Patent ‘714.
Claims 17-20 are unpatentable over claims 17-20 of Patent ‘714.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The claim recites, “muting the current vibration notification modality of the scheduled notification to the display notification modality.” It is not clear how vibration notification modality is muted. The specification describes muting the notification modality. (see para. [0058],[0079])
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.
Claims 1, 9, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lalka et al. US Patent Publication No. 2019/0104097 (“Lalka”) in view of Azeyanagi et al. US Patent Publication No. 2020/0364674 (“Azeyanagi”), Chhabra et al. US Patent Publication No. 2021/0065134 (“Chhabra”), and Cue et al. US Patent Publication No. 2024/0089338 (“Cue”).
Regarding claim 1, Lalka teaches a method, comprising:
generating a scheduled notification (para. [0060] particular notifications may be triggered on a predetermined schedule);
accessing a behavioral profile of the user account (para. [0049] analyzing user profile);
generating, using a machine learning model, a notification rule for the user account based on the behavioral profile (para. [0049] automatically generate rules by analyzing user profile data and developing rules which maximize the probability of the user acting upon a notification. para. [0052] identifying when one or more notifications… are to be triggered in association with one or more user profiles. modification rules can use a dynamic contextual engine… to determine whether the current context of the particular user associated with a triggered notification. para. [0049],[0096] machine learning algorithm/methods);
modifying the scheduled notification based on the notification rule (para. [0052] notification modification can occur in a number of ways, including by suppressing or cancelling a triggered notification, by delaying a triggered notification until the analyzed context has changed).
Lalka discloses generating a scheduled notification but not representing an upcoming occurrence of a future event associated with a user account.
Lalka discloses accessing a behavior profile but not by using a machine learning model trained on patterns associated with user behaviors.
Lalka does not teach updating the behavioral profile to include the notification rule.
Lalka teaches modifying the scheduled notification but not prior to initiation of the future event.
Azeyanagi discloses a scheduled notification representing an upcoming occurrence of a future event associated with a user account (para. [0030] reminder notification that is sent to a user at a specified amount of time prior to a scheduled meeting. para. [0050] event may include a conference, an appointment, a meeting); and prior to initiation of the future event, modifying the scheduled notification (para. [0056] determine, dynamically a time to transmit a reminder notification based on… start time for the event, location for the event. para. [0061] determines that 9 minutes must be added to the registered 5 minute event reminder notification. para. [0064] determine, dynamically, the time to transmit the notification to the participant). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lalka with Azeyanagi’s disclosure such that the scheduled notification of Lalka includes a notification that represents an upcoming occurrence of a future event associated with a user account and that is modified prior to the future event. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so for benefits of providing optimal pushing of different types of notifications including reminders for upcoming events. Azeyanagi would have further provided a benefit of determining an optimal time to send reminder notifications.
Chhabra discloses accessing a behavior profile using a machine learning model trained on patterns associated with user behaviors (para. [0022] user data relates to the activities, preferences, and learned behaviors of a user with respect to the group of applications and past notification. para. [0038] notification assistant 120 and/or the notification assistants 122, 124, 126 include artificial intelligence or one or more machine learning (ML) algorithms to learn the user's behaviors and preferences to predict the events for notifications, the content of the notifications, and/or the presentation of the notifications. para. [0054] notification assistant can detect the meeting based on an analysis of the user's calendar, the user's electronic communications, tasks, or other activities associated with the group of applications. para. [0058] notification assistant accesses the user data to determine an emphasis level for the notification. emphasis level is based at least on user interactions with past notifications. para. [0080] notification assistant 910 can be any suitable type of machine learning or artificial intelligence that learns over time and improves the notification process). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lalka with Chhabra’s disclosure of using a machine learning model trained on patterns associated with user behaviors. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because it would have been desirable to have continually learned and improved presenting of notifications (para. [0080]).
Cue discloses updating a behavioral profile to include the notification rule when the user provides approval of the notification rule (para. [0038] generate a suggested filtering rule. client 108 can present the suggested rule to the user, who can accept or decline it. if the user accepts the suggested rule, message management service 104 can establish the rule, e.g., by adding it to a set of filtering rules 126. para. [0044] different sets of filtering rules 240 can be established for different users, providing a customized user experience. para. [0049] automatically generate rules by analyzing user profile data. if a user's pattern of behavior indicates that notifications including offers during a certain time range are ignored above a particular threshold, then a corresponding user profile-specific rule 142 can created for that time range and used for future notifications). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lalka with Cue’s disclosure of updating the behavioral profile to include the notification rule. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to have allowed the user to confirm and control which rules that are added to the user account.
Regarding claim 9, Lalka teaches a system, comprising: one or more processors configured to:
generate a scheduled notification (para. [0060] particular notifications may be triggered on a predetermined schedule);
access a behavioral profile of the user account (para. [0049] analyzing user profile);
generate, using a machine learning model, a notification rule for the user account based on the behavioral profile (para. [0049] automatically generate rules by analyzing user profile data and developing rules which maximize the probability of the user acting upon a notification. para. [0052] identifying when one or more notifications… are to be triggered in association with one or more user profiles. modification rules can use a dynamic contextual engine… to determine whether the current context of the particular user associated with a triggered notification. para. [0049],[0096] machine learning algorithm/methods);
modify the scheduled notification based on the notification rule (para. [0052] notification modification can occur in a number of ways, including by suppressing or cancelling a triggered notification, by delaying a triggered notification until the analyzed context has changed).
Lalka discloses generating a scheduled notification but not representing an upcoming occurrence of a future event associated with a user account.
Lalka discloses accessing a behavior profile but not by using a machine learning model trained on patterns associated with user behaviors.
Lalka does not teach updating the behavioral profile to include the notification rule.
Lalka teaches modifying the scheduled notification but not prior to initiation of the future event.
Azeyanagi discloses a scheduled notification representing an upcoming occurrence of a future event associated with a user account (para. [0030] reminder notification that is sent to a user at a specified amount of time prior to a scheduled meeting. para. [0050] event may include a conference, an appointment, a meeting); and prior to initiation of the future event, modifying the scheduled notification (para. [0056] determine, dynamically a time to transmit a reminder notification based on… start time for the event, location for the event. para. [0061] determines that 9 minutes must be added to the registered 5 minute event reminder notification. para. [0064] determine, dynamically, the time to transmit the notification to the participant). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lalka with Azeyanagi’s disclosure such that the scheduled notification of Lalka includes a notification that represents an upcoming occurrence of a future event associated with a user account and that is modified prior to the future event. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so for benefits of providing optimal pushing of different types of notifications including reminders for upcoming events. Azeyanagi would have further provided a benefit of determining an optimal time to send reminder notifications.
Chhabra discloses accessing a behavior profile using a machine learning model trained on patterns associated with user behaviors (para. [0022] user data relates to the activities, preferences, and learned behaviors of a user with respect to the group of applications and past notification. para. [0038] notification assistant 120 and/or the notification assistants 122, 124, 126 include artificial intelligence or one or more machine learning (ML) algorithms to learn the user's behaviors and preferences to predict the events for notifications, the content of the notifications, and/or the presentation of the notifications. para. [0054] notification assistant can detect the meeting based on an analysis of the user's calendar, the user's electronic communications, tasks, or other activities associated with the group of applications. para. [0058] notification assistant accesses the user data to determine an emphasis level for the notification. emphasis level is based at least on user interactions with past notifications. para. [0080] notification assistant 910 can be any suitable type of machine learning or artificial intelligence that learns over time and improves the notification process). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lalka with Chhabra’s disclosure of using a machine learning model trained on patterns associated with user behaviors. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because it would have been desirable to have continually learned and improved presenting of notifications (para. [0080]).
Cue discloses updating a behavioral profile to include the notification rule when the user provides approval of the notification rule (para. [0038] generate a suggested filtering rule. client 108 can present the suggested rule to the user, who can accept or decline it. if the user accepts the suggested rule, message management service 104 can establish the rule, e.g., by adding it to a set of filtering rules 126. para. [0044] different sets of filtering rules 240 can be established for different users, providing a customized user experience. para. [0049] automatically generate rules by analyzing user profile data. if a user's pattern of behavior indicates that notifications including offers during a certain time range are ignored above a particular threshold, then a corresponding user profile-specific rule 142 can created for that time range and used for future notifications). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lalka with Cue’s disclosure of updating the behavioral profile to include the notification rule. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to have allowed the user to confirm and control which rules that are added to the user account.
Regarding claim 17, Lalka teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions, that when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising:
generating a scheduled notification (para. [0060] particular notifications may be triggered on a predetermined schedule);
accessing a behavioral profile of the user account (para. [0049] analyzing user profile);
generating, using a machine learning model, a notification rule for the user account based on the behavioral profile (para. [0049] automatically generate rules by analyzing user profile data and developing rules which maximize the probability of the user acting upon a notification. para. [0052] identifying when one or more notifications… are to be triggered in association with one or more user profiles. modification rules can use a dynamic contextual engine… to determine whether the current context of the particular user associated with a triggered notification. para. [0049],[0096] machine learning algorithm/methods);
modifying the scheduled notification based on the notification rule (para. [0052] notification modification can occur in a number of ways, including by suppressing or cancelling a triggered notification, by delaying a triggered notification until the analyzed context has changed).
Lalka discloses generating a scheduled notification but not representing an upcoming occurrence of a future event associated with a user account.
Lalka discloses accessing a behavior profile but not by using a machine learning model trained on patterns associated with user behaviors.
Lalka does not teach updating the behavioral profile to include the notification rule.
Lalka teaches modifying the scheduled notification but not prior to initiation of the future event.
Azeyanagi discloses a scheduled notification representing an upcoming occurrence of a future event associated with a user account (para. [0030] reminder notification that is sent to a user at a specified amount of time prior to a scheduled meeting. para. [0050] event may include a conference, an appointment, a meeting); and prior to initiation of the future event, modifying the scheduled notification (para. [0056] determine, dynamically a time to transmit a reminder notification based on… start time for the event, location for the event. para. [0061] determines that 9 minutes must be added to the registered 5 minute event reminder notification. para. [0064] determine, dynamically, the time to transmit the notification to the participant). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lalka with Azeyanagi’s disclosure such that the scheduled notification of Lalka includes a notification that represents an upcoming occurrence of a future event associated with a user account and that is modified prior to the future event. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so for benefits of providing optimal pushing of different types of notifications including reminders for upcoming events. Azeyanagi would have further provided a benefit of determining an optimal time to send reminder notifications.
Chhabra discloses accessing a behavior profile using a machine learning model trained on patterns associated with user behaviors (para. [0022] user data relates to the activities, preferences, and learned behaviors of a user with respect to the group of applications and past notification. para. [0038] notification assistant 120 and/or the notification assistants 122, 124, 126 include artificial intelligence or one or more machine learning (ML) algorithms to learn the user's behaviors and preferences to predict the events for notifications, the content of the notifications, and/or the presentation of the notifications. para. [0054] notification assistant can detect the meeting based on an analysis of the user's calendar, the user's electronic communications, tasks, or other activities associated with the group of applications. para. [0058] notification assistant accesses the user data to determine an emphasis level for the notification. emphasis level is based at least on user interactions with past notifications. para. [0080] notification assistant 910 can be any suitable type of machine learning or artificial intelligence that learns over time and improves the notification process). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lalka with Chhabra’s disclosure of using a machine learning model trained on patterns associated with user behaviors. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because it would have been desirable to have continually learned and improved presenting of notifications (para. [0080]).
Cue discloses updating a behavioral profile to include the notification rule when the user provides approval of the notification rule (para. [0038] generate a suggested filtering rule. client 108 can present the suggested rule to the user, who can accept or decline it. if the user accepts the suggested rule, message management service 104 can establish the rule, e.g., by adding it to a set of filtering rules 126. para. [0044] different sets of filtering rules 240 can be established for different users, providing a customized user experience. para. [0049] automatically generate rules by analyzing user profile data. if a user's pattern of behavior indicates that notifications including offers during a certain time range are ignored above a particular threshold, then a corresponding user profile-specific rule 142 can created for that time range and used for future notifications). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lalka with Cue’s disclosure of updating the behavioral profile to include the notification rule. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to have allowed the user to confirm and control which rules that are added to the user account.
Claims 2-8, 10-16, 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lalka in view of Azeyanagi, Chhabra, Cue, and Yalamanchili, US Patent Publication No. 2020/0412865 (“Yalamanchili”).
Regarding claim 2, Lalka does not teach the method as in claim 1, wherein accessing a behavioral profile of the user account comprises: accessing data representing at least one characteristic of usage of a computer device that corresponds with the user account during one or more previous events associated with the user account.
Yalamanchili discloses accessing data representing at least one characteristic of usage of a computer device that corresponds with a user account during one or more previous events associated with the user account (para. [0041] historical responses. whether the user changed the foreground application. para. [0043] pattern may be identified with regard to received notifications and corresponding responses. user frequently mutes the mobile computing device's audio output after receiving a notification during a calendared meeting). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lalka with Yalamanchili’s disclosure of accessing data representing characteristic of usage of a computer device. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Lalka discloses analyzing historical data associated with a user to determine how notifications are to be delivered to the user. It would have been beneficial to access and analyze additional data to control notifications and determine whether, when, and how notifications are presented on the computing device (para. [0010]).
Regarding claim 3, Lalka does not teach the method as in claim 2, wherein at least one characteristic of usage of the computer device that corresponds with the user account comprises: data representing access of at least one previous virtual conference event by the user account; or data representing user-selected operation of the computer device during one or more respective accessed previous virtual conferences.
Yalamanchili discloses data representing access of a least one previous virtual conference event by the user account; or data representing user-selected operation of the computer device during one or more respective accessed previous virtual conferences (para. [0041] historical responses. whether the user changed the foreground application. para. [0043] pattern may be identified with regard to received notifications and corresponding responses. user frequently mutes the mobile computing device's audio output after receiving a notification during a calendared meeting). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lalka with Yalamanchili’s disclosure of data representing access of a previous virtual conference event by the user account; or data representing user-selected operation of the computer device during one or more respective accessed previous virtual conferences. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Lalka discloses analyzing historical data associated with a user to determine how notifications are to be delivered to the user. It would have been beneficial to access and analyze additional data to enable additional control of notifications and to determine whether, when, and how notifications are presented on the computing device (para. [0010]).
Regarding claim 4, Lalka does not teach the method as in claim 3, wherein data representing user-selected operation of the computer device during one or more respective accessed previous virtual conferences comprises: data representing an adjustment by the user account of a display of at least a portion of a graphical user interface for a respective previously accessed virtual conference.
Yalamanchili discloses accessing data representing an adjustment by a user account of a display of at least a portion of a graphical user interface for a respective previously accessed virtual conference (para. [0041] historical responses. whether the user changed the foreground application. para. [0043] pattern may be identified with regard to received notifications and corresponding responses.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lalka with Yalamanchili’s disclosure of accessing data representing an adjustment by the user account of a display of at least a portion of a graphical user interface for a respective previously accessed virtual conference. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Lalka discloses analyzing historical data associated with a user to determine how notifications are to be delivered to the user. It would have been beneficial to access and analyze additional data to enable control of notifications and to determine whether, when, and how notifications are presented on the computing device (para. [0010]).
Regarding claim 5, Lalka does not teach the method as in claim 3, wherein data representing user-selected operation of the computer device during one or more respective accessed previous virtual conferences comprises: data representing a selection, during a particular portion of a respective accessed previous virtual conference, by the user account to disable the computer device from delivering virtual conference data received by the computer device.
Yalamanchili discloses data representing a selection, during a particular portion of a respective accessed previous virtual conference, by the user account to disable the computer device from delivering virtual conference data received by the computer device (para. [0022] disabling or setting a maximum threshold level for audio feedback. para. [0023] one or more notification feedback should be deferred until a future time or until some other criterion or criteria has been satisfied. para. [0043] pattern may be identified with regard to received notifications and corresponding responses. user frequently mutes the mobile computing device's audio output after receiving a notification during a calendared meeting). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lalka with Yalamanchili’s disclosure of accessing data representing user-selected operation of the computer device during one or more respective accessed previous virtual conferences. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Lalka discloses analyzing historical data associated with a user to determine how notifications are to be delivered to the user. It would have been beneficial to access and analyze additional data to enable additional control of notifications and to determine whether, when, and how notifications are presented on the computing device (para. [0010]).
Regarding claim 6, Lalka does not teach the method as in claim 3, wherein data representing user-selected operation of the computer device during one or more respective accessed previous virtual conferences comprises: data representing an amount of audio data provided to a respective accessed previous virtual conference by the computer device.
Yalamanchili discloses data representing an amount of audio data provided to a respective accessed previous virtual conference by the computer device (para. [0041] historical responses. whether the user changed the foreground application. whether the user changed an audio volume. para. [0043] pattern may be identified with regard to received notifications and corresponding responses. user frequently mutes the mobile computing device's audio output after receiving a notification during a calendared meeting). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lalka with Yalamanchili’s disclosure of data representing an amount of audio data provided to a respective accessed previous virtual conference by the computer device. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Lalka discloses analyzing historical data associated with a user to determine how notifications are to be delivered to the user. It would have been beneficial to access and analyze additional data to enable additional control of notifications and to determine whether, when, and how notifications are presented on the computing device (para. [0010]).
Regarding claim 7, Lalka does not teach the method as in claim 1, wherein modifying the scheduled notification comprises: altering a current vibration notification modality of the scheduled notification to a display notification modality.
Yalamanchili discloses altering a current vibration notification modality of the scheduled notification to a display notification modality (para. [0022] user notification modes, vibrations. para. [0031] requested notification may be presented in the notification mode specified by the satisfied criterion. para. [0041] historical responses. para. [0043] pattern may be identified with regard to received notifications and corresponding responses). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lalka with Yalamanchili’s disclosure of altering a current vibration notification modality of the scheduled notification to a display notification modality. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Lalka discloses analyzing historical data associated with a user to determine how notifications are to be delivered to the user. It would have been beneficial to access and analyze data to enable additional control of notifications and to determine whether, when, and how notifications are presented on the computing device (para. [0010]).
Regarding claim 8, Lalka does not teach the method as in claim 1, wherein modifying the scheduled notification comprises: muting a current notification modality of the scheduled notification.
Yalamanchili discloses modifying a notification comprises: muting a current notification modality of the scheduled notification (para. [0031] requested notification may be presented in the notification mode specified by the satisfied criterion. para. [0041] historical responses. para. [0043] pattern may be identified with regard to received notifications and corresponding responses. user frequently mutes the mobile computing device's audio output after receiving a notification during a calendared meeting). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lalka with Yalamanchili’s disclosure of modifying a notification comprises: muting a current notification modality of the scheduled notification. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Lalka discloses analyzing historical data associated with a user to determine how notifications are to be delivered to the user. It would have been beneficial to access and analyze data to enable additional control of notifications and to determine whether, when, and how notifications are presented on the computing device (para. [0010]).
Regarding claim 10, Lalka does not teach the system as in claim 9, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: access data representing at least one characteristic of usage of a computer device that corresponds with the user account during one or more previous events associated with the user account.
Yalamanchili discloses accessing data representing at least one characteristic of usage of a computer device that corresponds with a user account during one or more previous events associated with the user account (para. [0041] historical responses. whether the user changed the foreground application. para. [0043] pattern may be identified with regard to received notifications and corresponding responses. user frequently mutes the mobile computing device's audio output after receiving a notification during a calendared meeting). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lalka with Yalamanchili’s disclosure of accessing data representing characteristic of usage of a computer device. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Lalka discloses analyzing historical data associated with a user to determine how notifications are to be delivered to the user. It would have been beneficial to access and analyze additional data to enable control of notifications and to determine whether, when, and how notifications are presented on the computing device (para. [0010]).
Regarding claim 11, Lalka does not teach the system as in claim 10, wherein at least one characteristic of usage of the computer device that corresponds with the user account comprises: data representing access of at least one previous virtual conference event by the user account; and data representing user-selected operation of the computer device during one or more respective accessed previous virtual conferences.
Yalamanchili discloses data representing access of a least one previous virtual conference event by the user account; and data representing user-selected operation of the computer device during one or more respective accessed previous virtual conferences (para. [0041] historical responses. whether the user changed the foreground application. para. [0043] pattern may be identified with regard to received notifications and corresponding responses. user frequently mutes the mobile computing device's audio output after receiving a notification during a calendared meeting). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lalka with Yalamanchili’s disclosure of data representing access of a previous virtual conference event by the user account; and data representing user-selected operation of the computer device during one or more respective accessed previous virtual conferences. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Lalka discloses analyzing historical data associated with a user to determine how notifications are to be delivered to the user. It would have been beneficial to access and analyze additional data to enable additional control of notifications and to determine whether, when, and how notifications are presented on the computing device (para. [0010]).
Regarding claim 12, Lalka does not teach the system as in claim 11, wherein data representing user-selected operation of the computer device during one or more respective accessed previous virtual conferences comprises: data representing an adjustment by the user account of a display of at least a portion of a graphical user interface for a respective previously accessed virtual conference.
Yalamanchili discloses accessing data representing an adjustment by a user account of a display of at least a portion of a graphical user interface for a respective previously accessed virtual conference (para. [0041] historical responses. whether the user changed the foreground application. para. [0043] pattern may be identified with regard to received notifications and corresponding responses). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lalka with Yalamanchili’s disclosure of accessing data representing an adjustment by the user account of a display of at least a portion of a graphical user interface for a respective previously accessed virtual conference. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Lalka discloses analyzing historical data associated with a user to determine how notifications are to be delivered to the user. It would have been beneficial to access and analyze additional data to enable control of notifications and to determine whether, when, and how notifications are presented on the computing device (para. [0010]).
Regarding claim 13, Lalka does not teach the system as in claim 11, wherein data representing user-selected operation of the computer device during one or more respective accessed previous virtual conferences comprises: data representing a selection, during a particular portion of a respective accessed previous virtual conference, by the user account to disable the computer device from delivering virtual conference data received by the computer device.
Yalamanchili discloses data representing a selection, during a particular portion of a respective accessed previous virtual conference, by the user account to disable the computer device from delivering virtual conference data received by the computer device (para. [0022] disabling or setting a maximum threshold level for audio feedback. para. [0023] one or more notification feedback should be deferred until a future time or until some other criterion or criteria has been satisfied. para. [0043] pattern may be identified with regard to received notifications and corresponding responses. user frequently mutes the mobile computing device's audio output after receiving a notification during a calendared meeting). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lalka with Yalamanchili’s disclosure of accessing data representing user-selected operation of the computer device during one or more respective accessed previous virtual conferences. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Lalka discloses analyzing historical data associated with a user to determine how notifications are to be delivered to the user. It would have been beneficial to access and analyze additional data to enable additional control of notifications and to determine whether, when, and how notifications are presented on the computing device (para. [0010]).
Regarding claim 14, Lalka does not teach the system as in claim 11, wherein data representing user-selected operation of the computer device during one or more respective accessed previous virtual conferences comprises: data representing an amount of audio data provided to a respective accessed previous virtual conference by the computer device.
Yalamanchili discloses data representing an amount of audio data provided to a respective accessed previous virtual conference by the computer device (para. [0041] historical responses. whether the user changed the foreground application. whether the user changed an audio volume. para. [0043] pattern may be identified with regard to received notifications and corresponding responses. user frequently mutes the mobile computing device's audio output after receiving a notification during a calendared meeting). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lalka with Yalamanchili’s disclosure of data representing an amount of audio data provided to a respective accessed previous virtual conference by the computer device. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Lalka discloses analyzing historical data associated with a user to determine how notifications are to be delivered to the user. It would have been beneficial to access and analyze additional data to enable additional control of notifications and to determine whether, when, and how notifications are presented on the computing device (para. [0010]).
Regarding claim 15, Lalka does not teach the system as in claim 9, wherein the one or more processors is further configured to: alter a current vibration notification modality of the scheduled notification to a display notification modality.
Yalamanchili discloses altering a current vibration notification modality of the scheduled notification to a display notification modality (para. [0022] user notification modes, vibrations. para. [0031] requested notification may be presented in the notification mode specified by the satisfied criterion. para. [0041] historical responses. whether the user changed the foreground application. para. [0043] pattern may be identified with regard to received notifications and corresponding responses). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lalka with Yalamanchili’s disclosure of altering a current vibration notification modality of the scheduled notification to a display notification modality. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Lalka discloses analyzing historical data associated with a user to determine how notifications are to be delivered to the user. It would have been beneficial to access and analyze data to enable additional control of notifications and to determine whether, when, and how notifications are presented on the computing device (para. [0010]).
Regarding claim 16, Lalka does not teach the system as in claim 9, wherein the one or more processors is further configured to: mute a current notification modality of the scheduled notification.
Yalamanchili discloses modifying a notification comprises: muting a current notification modality of the scheduled notification (para. [0031] requested notification may be presented in the notification mode specified by the satisfied criterion. para. [0041] historical responses. para. [0043] pattern may be identified with regard to received notifications and corresponding responses. user frequently mutes the mobile computing device's audio output after receiving a notification during a calendared meeting). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lalka with Yalamanchili’s disclosure of muting a current notification modality of the scheduled notification. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Lalka discloses analyzing historical data associated with a user to determine how notifications are to be delivered to the user. It would have been beneficial to access and analyze data to enable additional control of notifications and to determine whether, when, and how notifications are presented on the computing device (para. [0010]).
Regarding claim 18, Lalka does not teach the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 17, wherein accessing a behavioral profile of the user account comprises: accessing data representing at least one characteristic of usage of a computer device that corresponds with the user account during one or more previous events associated with the user account.
Yalamanchili discloses accessing data representing at least one characteristic of usage of a computer device that corresponds with a user account during one or more previous events associated with the user account (para. [0041] historical responses. whether the user changed the foreground application. para. [0043] pattern may be identified with regard to received notifications and corresponding responses. user frequently mutes the mobile computing device's audio output after receiving a notification during a calendared meeting). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lalka with Yalamanchili’s disclosure of accessing data representing characteristic of usage of a computer device. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Lalka discloses analyzing historical data associated with a user to determine how notifications are to be delivered to the user. It would have been beneficial to access and analyze additional data to enable control of notifications and to determine whether, when, and how notifications are presented on the computing device (para. [0010]).
Regarding claim 19, Lalka does not teach the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 18, wherein at least one characteristic of usage of the computer device that corresponds with the user account comprises: data representing access of at least one previous virtual conference event by the user account; and data representing user-selected operation of the computer device during one or more respective accessed previous virtual conferences.
Yalamanchili discloses data representing access of a least one previous virtual conference event by the user account; and data representing user-selected operation of the computer device during one or more respective accessed previous virtual conferences (para. [0041] historical responses. whether the user changed the foreground application. para. [0043] pattern may be identified with regard to received notifications and corresponding responses. user frequently mutes the mobile computing device's audio output after receiving a notification during a calendared meeting). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lalka with Yalamanchili’s disclosure of data representing access of a previous virtual conference event by the user account; and data representing user-selected operation of the computer device during one or more respective accessed previous virtual conferences. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Lalka discloses analyzing historical data associated with a user to determine how notifications are to be delivered to the user. It would have been beneficial to access and analyze additional data to enable additional control of notifications and to determine whether, when, and how notifications are presented on the computing device (para. [0010]).
Regarding claim 20, Lalka does not teach the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 19, wherein data representing user-selected operation of the computer device during one or more respective accessed previous virtual conferences comprises at least one of: data representing an adjustment by the user account of a display of at least a portion of a graphical user interface for a respective previously accessed virtual conference; data representing a selection, during a particular portion of a respective accessed previous virtual conference, by the user account to disable the computer device from delivering virtual conference data received by the computer device; and data representing an amount of audio data provided to a respective accessed previous virtual conference by the computer device; wherein modifying the scheduled notification comprises one of: altering a current vibration notification modality of the scheduled notification to a display notification modality; and muting the current vibration notification modality of the scheduled notification to the display notification modality.
Yalamanchili discloses data representing user-selected operation of the computer device during one or more respective accessed previous virtual conferences comprises at least one of: data representing an adjustment by a user account of a display of at least a portion of a graphical user interface for a respective previously accessed virtual conference and data representing an amount of audio data provided to a respective accessed previous virtual conference by the computer device (para. [0041] historical responses. whether the user changed the foreground application. whether the user changed an audio volume. para. [0043] pattern may be identified with regard to received notifications and corresponding responses); and wherein modifying the scheduled notification comprises one of: altering a current vibration notification modality of the scheduled notification to a display notification modality; and muting the current vibration notification modality of the scheduled notification to the display notification modality (para. [0022] user notification modes, vibrations. para. [0031] requested notification may be presented in the notification mode specified by the satisfied criterion. para. [0041] historical responses. whether the user changed the foreground application. para. [0043] user frequently mutes the mobile computing device's audio output after receiving a notification during a calendared meeting). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lalka with Yalamanchili’s. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Lalka discloses analyzing historical data associated with a user to determine how notifications are to be delivered to the user. It would have been beneficial to access and analyze additional data to enable control of notifications and to determine whether, when, and how notifications are presented on the computing device (para. [0010]).
Examiner’s Note
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Keohane et al. US Patent Publication No. 2020/0259948 using a machine learning model trained on patterns associated with user behaviors (para. [0068] determine, by utilizing a machine learning (ML) model to learn patterns in the user's behavior, that the user's decision to accept or decline (or reject) a notification may be based on different or additional factors (e.g., whether the notification is related to a particular task. para. [0092] utilize the historical data associated with past notifications of the user (e.g., context of the notifications, sender location, sender, the user state) and the user's decision (e.g., rejection or acceptance of the notification) to train a machine learning (ML) model)
Dotan-Cohen et al. US Patent Publication No. 2022/0345432 (para. [0048] train user routine models 235 using those interaction datasets 233. para. [0084] each of these determinations can utilize a dedicated machine learning model that makes the determinations based on features provided to the model, or any combination of these determinations can be combined into a single machine learning model. para. [0125] notification times can be calculated or determined from timing attributes. notification times are machine learned, such as using routine model engine 240. inference engine 350C can learn timings based on historical notifications sent or provided to the user)
Conclusion
A shortened statutory period for reply to this Office action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Joshua Joo whose telephone number is (571)272-3966. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7am-3pm.
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, Oscar Louie can be reached at 571-270-1684. 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.
/JOSHUA JOO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2445
Prosecution Insights