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 .
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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.
Claim(s) 1, 6-8, and 13-14 with an earliest effective filing date of 8/8/19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kolls (U.S. Publication No. 2021/0097628 filed on 2/21/17 as cited on IDS).
With respect to claim 1, the Kolls reference teaches a system for generating correspondence between a user and a contact, the system comprising:
a central server including at least a processor and a memory (Computing Device 280 [Figure 2]), the central server configured to communicate with a user terminal (computing device 210 [Figure 2]) and a plurality of content sources (information source 240, financial services 250 [Figure 2]);
the user terminal configured to provide at least one contact input from the user regarding a contact (a user requests information about one or more contacts [paragraph 95]);
the plurality of content sources controlled by a plurality of third parties and including potential content of interest to the contact (information sources are polled for information relevant to the contacts [paragraph 88, 89, and 118]); and
the processor configured to execute instructions stored on the memory to cause the central server to:
(i) access an email between the user and the contact (contacts data store 194 contains various data about contacts including online email communications [paragraph 26]) or a digital calendar entry regarding a meeting between the user and the contact;
(ii) identify one or more keywords in the email or the digital calendar entry; (iii) use the one or more keywords to identify relevant content for the contract from the plurality of content sources (the data within the contacts data store 194 is used to construct a search query using keywords like a contacts name [paragraphs 35-36] which identifies content related to the keyword [paragraph 36]); and
(iii) generate a suggested communication to be transmitted to the contact using the relevant content (a suggested communication to the contact is presented to the user [Item 345 Figure 3E and paragraph 110]).
With respect to claim 6, the Kolls reference teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as described above. In addition, the Kolls reference teaches that the at least one contact input includes uploaded or linked content provided from the user terminal (there is a link associated with the contact [paragraphs 103-105]).
With respect to claim 7, the Kolls reference teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Additionally, the Kolls reference teaches that the processor is configured to generate the suggested communication with a link to the identified relevant content (a suggested communication includes a link [paragraphs 103-105]).
With respect to claim 8, the limitations of claim 8 are the method embodiment of claim 1 and claim 8 recites no further significant limitations therein. Therefore, the limitations of claim 8 are rejected in the analysis of claim 1 and claim 8 is likewise rejected on the same basis.
With respect to claim 13, the limitations of claim 13 are the method embodiment of claim 6 and claim 13 recites no further significant limitations therein. Therefore, the limitations of claim 13 are rejected in the analysis of claim 6 and claim 13 is likewise rejected on the same basis.
With respect to claim 14, the limitations of claim 14 are the method embodiment of claim 7 and claim 14 recites no further significant limitations therein. Therefore, the limitations of claim 14 are rejected in the analysis of claim 7 and claim 14 is likewise rejected on the same basis.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 2 and 9 with an earliest effective filing date of 8/8/19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kolls (U.S. Publication No. 2021/0097628 filed on 2/21/17 as cited on IDS) in view of Gomaa (U.S. Publication No. 2010/0042612 published on 2/18/10 as cited on IDS).
With respect to claim 2, the Kolls reference teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as described above. It does not explicitly recite that the processor is configured to identify the one or more keywords based on a number of repetitions. The Gomaa reference teaches that the processor is configured to identify the one or more keywords based on a number of repetitions (an interest level is determined based upon the number of entries that use the keyword [paragraph 20]). 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 the system of Kolls with the popularity measure of Gomaa. Such a modification would have made the system more desirable to users by identifying more popular content.
With respect to claim 9, the limitations of claim 9 are the method embodiment of claim 2 and claim 9 recites no further significant limitations therein. Therefore, the limitations of claim 9 are rejected in the analysis of claim 2 and claim 9 is likewise rejected on the same basis.
Claim(s) 3 and 10 with an earliest effective filing date of 8/8/19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kolls (U.S. Publication No. 2021/0097628 filed on 2/21/17 as cited on IDS) in view of Jonsson (U.S. Publication No. 2011/0131207 published on 6/2/11).
With respect to claim 3, the Kolls reference teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as described above. It does not explicitly recite that the processor is configured to identify the one or more keywords based on use in a keyword phrase with other target words. The Jonsson reference teaches that the processor is configured to identify the one or more keywords based on use in a keyword phrase with other target words (keywords are identified based on other keywords appearing with them in messages [paragraph 105]). 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 the system of Kolls with the keywords of Jonsson. Such a modification would made the system more desirable to users by identifying additional relevant content.
With respect to claim 10, the limitations of claim 10 are the method embodiment of claim 3 and claim 10 recites no further significant limitations therein. Therefore, the limitations of claim 10 are rejected in the analysis of claim 3 and claim 10 is likewise rejected on the same basis.
Claim(s) 4 and 11 with an earliest effective filing date of 8/8/19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kolls (U.S. Publication No. 2021/0097628 filed on 2/21/17 as cited on IDS) in view of Leblang et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11,012,575 filed on 2/15/18).
With respect to claim 4, the Kolls reference teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as described above. The Kolls reference does not explicitly recite that the digital calendar entry is from a past meeting between the user and the contact. The Leblang reference teaches that the digital calendar entry is from a past meeting between the user and the contact (past meetings are analyzed for keywords to associate with participation rates [col. 9 lines 15-38]). 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 the system of Kolls with the meeting data of Leblang. Such a modifications would have made the system more desirable to users by identifying what keywords result in better participation rates.
With respect to claim 11, the limitations of claim 11 are the method embodiment of claim 4 and claim 11 recites no further significant limitations therein. Therefore, the limitations of claim 11 are rejected in the analysis of claim 4 and claim 11 is likewise rejected on the same basis.
Claim(s) 5 and 12 with an earliest effective filing date of 8/8/19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kolls (U.S. Publication No. 2021/0097628 filed on 2/21/17 as cited on IDS) in view of Shenoy et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10,949,616 filed on 8/21/18 as cited on IDS).
With respect to claim 5, the Kolls reference teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as described above. It does not explicitly recite that the digital calendar entry is from a future meeting between the user and the contact. The Shenoy reference teaches that the digital calendar entry is from a future meeting between the user and the contact (the messages are analyzed to determine an schedule a future meeting [col. 22 line 40 to col. 23 line 42]). 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 the system of Kolls with the future meetings of Shenoy. Such a modification would have made the system more desirable to users by making it easier to schedule meetings.
With respect to claim 12, the limitations of claim 12 are the method embodiment of claim 5 and claim 12 recites no further significant limitations therein. Therefore, the limitations of claim 12 are rejected in the analysis of claim 5 and claim 12 is likewise rejected on the same basis.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15-20 are allowed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRIS E MACKES whose telephone number is (571)270-3554. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00-4:00 EST.
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, Kavita Stanley can be reached at 571-272-8352. 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.
/KRIS E MACKES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2153
Prosecution Insights