DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is responsive to application filed on 02 May 2025. Claims 1-20 are pending in the case. Claims 1, 7, and 17 are the independent claims. This action is non-final.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rasmussen et al. (US 2021/0042376 A1) in view of Dhar et al. (US 2024/0095268 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Rasmussen teaches a method for determining relevant messages during an e-discovery process, comprising the steps of:
importing a plurality of messages from each of a plurality of communication applications from each of a plurality of electronic devices from each of a plurality of entities (see Rasmussen, Paragraph [0047], “Once a device has been selected, if selection is necessary, data stored on that device is presented to the client for review (hence, the term “reviewer”). This “presentation” can be done in a number of ways. In one embodiment of the present invention, the system presents the reviewer with a plurality of applications that are associated with the data. This can be seen in FIG. 4A, where the mobile device includes data from a plurality of applications 402, including message (e.g., text messaging), phone, email, photo (e.g., camera), Instagram™, Facebook™, Twitter™, and WhatsApp™ applications. Identifying the applications that are on (or accessible via) the mobile device can be done in a number of ways, including analyzing applications (or programs), folders, and/or files that are stored on the mobile device. In fact, many operating systems are adapted to present the user with applications that are operating on their device in the “settings” menu. This same menu can be accessed by the system to identify applications that are operating on the mobile device.” [Data from different applications, and different devices may be presented (i.e., imported) to a user.]);
storing the plurality of messages in chronological order in a file share (see Rasmussen, Paragraph [0057], “As shown in FIG. 5, if the reviewer selects the “messages” category or application 402 b, they will be presented with message data, which may include individual threads having individual records or messages (502 a, 502 b, 502 c). The reviewer should also be provided with information on each record, including, but not limited to, the record's content (text, emojis, photos, video, etc.), to, from, date, time, read, unread, etc. This information may either be presented along with each record or separately (e.g., in a pop-up window). While the records are preferably organized chronologically, other structures are within the spirit and scope of the present invention.” [The messages may be organized chronologically.]);
receiving a search query from a user, wherein the search query comprises one or more search terms, boolean logic and a proximity indicator (see Rasmussen, Paragraph [0064], “a reviewer may browse the data by selecting a category or an application and scrolling through portions of the data (i.e., data for that category). Alternatively, or in addition, a reviewer may search for a search term (e.g., name, subject, date, period of time, etc.).” [A search query may be received.]);
However, Rasmussen does not explicitly teach:
receiving a search query from a user, wherein the search query comprises one or more search terms, boolean logic and a proximity indicator;
Dhar teaches:
receiving a search query from a user, wherein the search query comprises one or more search terms, boolean logic and a proximity indicator (see Dhar, Paragraph [0062], “the system provides a provision for performing keyword search using Boolean operators, proximity operators, wild card operators and any other advanced keyword search functionalities.” [A keyword search may be performed using Boolean operators and proximity operators.]);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Rasmussen (teaching system and method for analyzing, organizing, and presenting data stored on a mobile communication device) in view of Dhar (teaching productivity improvements in document comprehension), and arrived at a method that incorporates Boolean and proximity operators. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination for the purposes of improving information retrieval (see Dhar, Paragraph [0005]). In addition, both the references (Rasmussen and Dhar) teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, such as information systems. The close relation between both the references highly suggests an expectation of success.
The combination of Rasmussen, and Dhar further teaches:
determining a hit plurality of messages in the plurality of messages in the file share that satisfy the search query (see Rasmussen, Paragraph [0064], “Results may include records that match or are closely related (e.g., similar, etc.) and may be performed globally (i.e., on all the data) or on individual categories or applications.” [Search results that match or are closely related may be determined (i.e., determining a hit plurality of messages in the plurality of messages in the file share that satisfy the search query).]);
determining a context plurality of messages in the plurality of messages that are immediately before or immediately after the hit plurality of messages (see Rasmussen, Paragraph [0067], “the system may include a “story telling” feature, where data related to a search result (or record) is presented to the reviewer in order to provide context. For example, if the record 902 b is responsive to a search term, then the system may provide other records related to that search term. This may include records that precede and succeed the record in the same application (i.e., 902 a, 902 c).” [Search results that precede or succeed the search results (i.e., a context plurality of messages in the plurality of messages) may be provided.]);
displaying the hit plurality of messages to the user that satisfy the search query in a functional display window (see Rasmussen, Paragraph [0065], “For example, as shown in FIG. 9, if a reviewer enters the name “Ardy” in a search field 900, then the system may provide search results, which may be from one application or many applications.” [Search results that satisfy the query may be presented.]);
detecting that the user selected a view more command associated with a hit message in the hit plurality of messages in the functional display window (see Rasmussen, Paragraph [0065], “For example, as shown in FIG. 9, if a reviewer enters the name “Ardy” in a search field 900, then the system may provide search results, which may be from one application or many applications. For example, by not selecting an application, all data stored on the mobile device may be searched. If, however, the reviewer only wants to see results from a particular application, then they could select that application before entering the search term.” [A user may view more search results.]);
and displaying a context message from the context plurality of messages immediately before or immediately after the hit message in the functional display window, determined by the view more command (see Rasmussen, Paragraph [0067], “the system may include a “story telling” feature, where data related to a search result (or record) is presented to the reviewer in order to provide context. For example, if the record 902 b is responsive to a search term, then the system may provide other records related to that search term. This may include records that precede and succeed the record in the same application (i.e., 902 a, 902 c).” [Search results that precede or succeed the search results (i.e., a context message from the context plurality of messages) may be presented.]).
Regarding claim 2, Rasmussen in view of Dhar teaches all the limitations of claim 1. Rasmussen further teaches:
wherein the view more command is for a message before the hit message; and displaying the context message from the context plurality of messages immediately before the hit message in the functional display window (see Rasmussen, Paragraphs [0014], [0067], “the present invention may also be configured to present records (such as search results) in context. This may be done either automatically or selectively (e.g., by selecting the “story telling” feature). … the system may include a “story telling” feature, where data related to a search result (or record) is presented to the reviewer in order to provide context. For example, if the record 902 b is responsive to a search term, then the system may provide other records related to that search term. This may include records that precede and succeed the record in the same application (i.e., 902 a, 902 c).” [A story telling feature may be selected in order to present search results that precede or succeed the search results (i.e., context message from the context plurality of messages).]).
Regarding claim 3, Rasmussen in view of Dhar teaches all the limitations of claim 1. Rasmussen further teaches:
wherein the view more command is for a message after the hit message; and displaying the context message from the context plurality of messages immediately after the hit message in the functional display window (see Rasmussen, Paragraphs [0014], [0067], “the present invention may also be configured to present records (such as search results) in context. This may be done either automatically or selectively (e.g., by selecting the “story telling” feature). … the system may include a “story telling” feature, where data related to a search result (or record) is presented to the reviewer in order to provide context. For example, if the record 902 b is responsive to a search term, then the system may provide other records related to that search term. This may include records that precede and succeed the record in the same application (i.e., 902 a, 902 c).” [A story telling feature may be selected in order to present search results that precede or succeed the search results (i.e., context message from the context plurality of messages).]).
Regarding claim 4, Rasmussen in view of Dhar teaches all the limitations of claim 1. Rasmussen further teaches:
wherein the view more command in the functional display window is detected immediately after the user hovers a mouse pointer over the view more command and left clicks a mouse (see Rasmussen, Paragraph [0049], “This information may either be presented along with each record or separately (e.g., in a pop-up window) if a particular record is selected (e.g., by clicking on a record, placing a pointer over a record, etc.).” [The information may be viewed by placing a pointer over a record and selecting a record.]).
Regarding claim 5, Rasmussen in view of Dhar teaches all the limitations of claim 1. Dhar further teaches:
wherein the view more command in the functional display window is detected immediately after the user presses, with either a finger or a stylus, the view more command in the functional display window (see Dhar, Paragraph [0057], “The input/out device 304 may include but is not limited to display, a touchscreen, a mouse and associated controllers for the input/output devices.” [A touchscreen (i.e., with either a finger or a stylus) may be used to control the interface.]).
Regarding claim 6, Rasmussen in view of Dhar teaches all the limitations of claim 1. Rasmussen further teaches:
wherein the electronic devices comprise computers and/or cell phones (see Rasmussen, Paragraph [0039], “As shown in FIG. 1, preferred embodiments of the present invention operate in accordance with a Web host 102 in communication with a mobile communication device 108, such as a mobile phone, via a wide area network (WAN) 100. In one embodiment of the present invention, a local computer 106, such as a personal computer (PC), is connected to the mobile device 108 either directly or via the WAN 100.” [The system includes computers and cellphones.]).
Claims 7-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rasmussen in view of Raghavan et al. (US 2025/0094429 A1), further in view of Dhar.
Regarding claim 7, Rasmussen teaches a method for searching for one or more messages out of a corpus of messages, comprising the steps of:
receiving a first plurality of messages from a first application on a first device (see Rasmussen, Paragraphs [0046]-[0047], “a first device 304 a may be the plaintiff's mobile phone, the second device 304 b may be the defendant's PC, etc. The client may then be allowed to select at least one device (e.g., 304 a) from the list. The client may also be presented with different ways of navigating the data, including browsing 306 a or searching 306 b. … Once a device has been selected, if selection is necessary, data stored on that device is presented to the client for review (hence, the term “reviewer”). This “presentation” can be done in a number of ways. In one embodiment of the present invention, the system presents the reviewer with a plurality of applications that are associated with the data. This can be seen in FIG. 4A, where the mobile device includes data from a plurality of applications 402, including message (e.g., text messaging), phone, email, photo (e.g., camera), Instagram™, Facebook™, Twitter™, and WhatsApp™ applications.” [Data from a first device from a first application may be received.]);
receiving a second plurality of messages from a second application on a second device (see Rasmussen, Paragraphs [0046]-[0047], “a first device 304 a may be the plaintiff's mobile phone, the second device 304 b may be the defendant's PC, etc. The client may then be allowed to select at least one device (e.g., 304 a) from the list. The client may also be presented with different ways of navigating the data, including browsing 306 a or searching 306 b. … Once a device has been selected, if selection is necessary, data stored on that device is presented to the client for review (hence, the term “reviewer”). This “presentation” can be done in a number of ways. In one embodiment of the present invention, the system presents the reviewer with a plurality of applications that are associated with the data. This can be seen in FIG. 4A, where the mobile device includes data from a plurality of applications 402, including message (e.g., text messaging), phone, email, photo (e.g., camera), Instagram™, Facebook™, Twitter™, and WhatsApp™ applications.” [Data from a second device from a second application may be received.]);
However, Rasmussen does not explicitly teach:
normalizing and combining the first plurality of messages and the second plurality of messages to create the corpus of messages;
Dhar teaches:
normalizing and combining the first plurality of messages and the second plurality of messages to create the corpus of messages (see Raghavan, Paragraphs [0015], [0024], “identifying groups of electronic messages, generating conversation documents using the groups of electronic messages, and indexing the conversation documents … As the content from different data sources may contain different data formats and document types, incoming documents may be converted to plain text or to a normalized data format.” [Messages from different applications may be normalized and combined.]);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Rasmussen (teaching system and method for analyzing, organizing, and presenting data stored on a mobile communication device) in view of Raghavan (teaching intelligent grouping of messages into conversation documents for ranking and retrieval), and arrived at a method that incorporates grouping messages. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination for the purposes of improving search ranking and retrieval (see Raghavan, Paragraph [0015]). In addition, both the references (Rasmussen and Raghavan) teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, such as information systems. The close relation between both the references highly suggests an expectation of success.
The combination of Rasmussen, and Dhar further teaches:
scraping the corpus of messages for emoji used in the corpus of messages (see Rasmussen, Paragraph [0057], “As shown in FIG. 5, if the reviewer selects the “messages” category or application 402 b, they will be presented with message data, which may include individual threads having individual records or messages (502 a, 502 b, 502 c). The reviewer should also be provided with information on each record, including, but not limited to, the record's content (text, emojis, photos, video, etc.), to, from, date, time, read, unread, etc.” [Emojis associated with the messages may be provided (i.e., scraping).]);
scraping the corpus of messages for keywords used in the corpus of messages (see Rasmussen, Paragraph [0057], “As shown in FIG. 5, if the reviewer selects the “messages” category or application 402 b, they will be presented with message data, which may include individual threads having individual records or messages (502 a, 502 b, 502 c). The reviewer should also be provided with information on each record, including, but not limited to, the record's content (text, emojis, photos, video, etc.), to, from, date, time, read, unread, etc.” [Text (i.e., keywords) associated with the messages may be provided (i.e., scraping).]);
However, the combination of Rasmussen, and Raghavan does not explicitly teach:
displaying a functional emoji cloud built from the used emoji;
Dhar teaches:
displaying a functional emoji cloud built from the used emoji (see Dhar, Paragraph [0075], “FIG. 4 illustrates an example user interface implementation, where a query word cloud of the words in the query statement are displayed at 402 and a document word cloud of the words in the documents are displayed at 404. In an embodiment of the present invention, the document word cloud may be generated based on claims in patent documents. In another embodiment of the present invention, when a query term is selected then corresponding claim terms of interest may be selected by the user. The selections made by the user is displayed in the left pane 406” [An emoji cloud may be built.]);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Rasmussen (teaching system and method for analyzing, organizing, and presenting data stored on a mobile communication device) in view of Raghavan (teaching intelligent grouping of messages into conversation documents for ranking and retrieval), further in view of Dhar (teaching productivity improvements in document comprehension), and arrived at a method that incorporates an emoji cloud. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination for the purposes of improving information retrieval (see Dhar, Paragraph [0005]). In addition, the references (Rasmussen, Raghavan, and Dhar) teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, such as information systems. The close relation between the references highly suggests an expectation of success.
The combination of Rasmussen, Raghavan, and Dhar further teaches:
displaying a functional keyword cloud built from the used keywords (see Dhar, Paragraph [0075], “FIG. 4 illustrates an example user interface implementation, where a query word cloud of the words in the query statement are displayed at 402 and a document word cloud of the words in the documents are displayed at 404. In an embodiment of the present invention, the document word cloud may be generated based on claims in patent documents. In another embodiment of the present invention, when a query term is selected then corresponding claim terms of interest may be selected by the user. The selections made by the user is displayed in the left pane 406” [A word cloud may be built.]);
detecting a selected one or more emojis from the functional emoji cloud (see Dhar, Paragraph [0075], “FIG. 4 illustrates an example user interface implementation, where a query word cloud of the words in the query statement are displayed at 402 and a document word cloud of the words in the documents are displayed at 404. In an embodiment of the present invention, the document word cloud may be generated based on claims in patent documents. In another embodiment of the present invention, when a query term is selected then corresponding claim terms of interest may be selected by the user. The selections made by the user is displayed in the left pane 406” [Selections may be made to the word cloud.]);
detecting a selected one or more keywords from the functional keyword cloud (see Dhar, Paragraph [0075], “FIG. 4 illustrates an example user interface implementation, where a query word cloud of the words in the query statement are displayed at 402 and a document word cloud of the words in the documents are displayed at 404. In an embodiment of the present invention, the document word cloud may be generated based on claims in patent documents. In another embodiment of the present invention, when a query term is selected then corresponding claim terms of interest may be selected by the user. The selections made by the user is displayed in the left pane 406” [Selections may be made to the word cloud.]);
and displaying the one or more messages out of the corpus of messages that includes the selected one or more emojis from the functional emoji cloud and the selected one or more keywords from the functional keyword cloud (see Rasmussen, Paragraph [0057], “As shown in FIG. 5, if the reviewer selects the “messages” category or application 402 b, they will be presented with message data, which may include individual threads having individual records or messages (502 a, 502 b, 502 c). The reviewer should also be provided with information on each record, including, but not limited to, the record's content (text, emojis, photos, video, etc.), to, from, date, time, read, unread, etc. This information may either be presented along with each record or separately (e.g., in a pop-up window). While the records are preferably organized chronologically, other structures are within the spirit and scope of the present invention.” [The emojis and texts may be presented.]).
Regarding claim 8, Rasmussen in view of Raghavan, further in view of Dhar teaches all the limitations of claim 7. Rasmussen further teaches:
wherein the first device is a different device than the second device (see Rasmussen, Paragraphs [0046]-[0047], “a first device 304 a may be the plaintiff's mobile phone, the second device 304 b may be the defendant's PC, etc. The client may then be allowed to select at least one device (e.g., 304 a) from the list. The client may also be presented with different ways of navigating the data, including browsing 306 a or searching 306 b.” [Different devices may be selected.]).
Regarding claim 9, Rasmussen in view of Raghavan, further in view of Dhar teaches all the limitations of claim 8. Rasmussen further teaches:
wherein the first application on the first device and the second application on the second device are different applications that store data differently (see Rasmussen, Paragraphs [0046]-[0047], “a first device 304 a may be the plaintiff's mobile phone, the second device 304 b may be the defendant's PC, etc. The client may then be allowed to select at least one device (e.g., 304 a) from the list. The client may also be presented with different ways of navigating the data, including browsing 306 a or searching 306 b. … Once a device has been selected, if selection is necessary, data stored on that device is presented to the client for review (hence, the term “reviewer”). This “presentation” can be done in a number of ways. In one embodiment of the present invention, the system presents the reviewer with a plurality of applications that are associated with the data. This can be seen in FIG. 4A, where the mobile device includes data from a plurality of applications 402, including message (e.g., text messaging), phone, email, photo (e.g., camera), Instagram™, Facebook™, Twitter™, and WhatsApp™ applications.” [Data from different devices, and different applications may be provided.]).
Regarding claim 10, Rasmussen in view of Raghavan, further in view of Dhar teaches all the limitations of claim 7. Rasmussen further teaches:
wherein data from the first application on the first device comprises text messages, while data from the second application on the second device comprises audio messages (see Rasmussen, Paragraphs [0049], [0057], “The log may provide information on each call (or record), including, but not limited to, incoming, outgoing, answered, rejected, voicemail, voicemail content, name, number, date, time, duration, etc. … The reviewer should also be provided with information on each record, including, but not limited to, the record's content (text, emojis, photos, video, etc.), to, from, date, time, read, unread, etc.” [Text messages from a first application on first device, and audio messages from a second application on a second device may be provided.]).
Regarding claim 11, Rasmussen in view of Raghavan, further in view of Dhar teaches all the limitations of claim 7. Rasmussen further teaches:
wherein data from the first application on the first device comprises text messages, while data from the second application on the second device comprises video (see Rasmussen, Paragraphs [0049], [0057], “The log may provide information on each call (or record), including, but not limited to, incoming, outgoing, answered, rejected, voicemail, voicemail content, name, number, date, time, duration, etc. … The reviewer should also be provided with information on each record, including, but not limited to, the record's content (text, emojis, photos, video, etc.), to, from, date, time, read, unread, etc.” [Text messages from a first application on first device, and videos from a second application on a second device may be provided.]).
Regarding claim 12, Rasmussen in view of Raghavan, further in view of Dhar teaches all the limitations of claim 7. Rasmussen further teaches:
wherein data from the first application on the first device comprises text messages, while the data from the second application on the second device comprises financial transactions (see Rasmussen, Paragraph [0070], “The system may identify text messages that are to or from Ardy (see, e.g., FIG. 5) and social media involving Ardy (see, e.g., FIG. 7). However, the system may also be configured to collect and organize information concerning Ardy, which may be extracted from various applications and/or records. For example, as shown in FIG. 8, a contact record on Ardy (802 a) (stored on the mobile device) may include his phone number (802 b), his email address (802 c), and his mailing address (802 d), and other records stored on the mobile device may include other identifiers, such as government issued IDs (802 e) (e.g., driver's license, social security number, etc.), financial information (802 f) (e.g., Visa, Paypal, Zelle, bank accounts, etc.), etc.” [Text messages from a first application on first device, and financial information (i.e., financial transactions) from a second application on a second device may be provided.]).
Regarding claim 13, Rasmussen in view of Raghavan, further in view of Dhar teaches all the limitations of claim 7. Rasmussen further teaches:
wherein the selected one or more emoji are detected immediately after a user hovers a mouse pointer over the selected one or more emoji in the functional emoji cloud and left clicks a mouse (see Rasmussen, Paragraph [0049], “This information may either be presented along with each record or separately (e.g., in a pop-up window) if a particular record is selected (e.g., by clicking on a record, placing a pointer over a record, etc.).” [The information may be viewed by placing a pointer over a record and selecting a record.]).
Regarding claim 14, Rasmussen in view of Raghavan, further in view of Dhar teaches all the limitations of claim 7. Dhar further teaches:
wherein the selected one or more emoji are detected immediately after a user presses, with either a finger or a stylus, the selected one or more emoji in the functional emoji cloud (see Dhar, Paragraph [0057], “The input/out device 304 may include but is not limited to display, a touchscreen, a mouse and associated controllers for the input/output devices.” [A touchscreen (i.e., with either a finger or a stylus) may be used to control the interface.]).
Regarding claim 15, Rasmussen in view of Raghavan, further in view of Dhar teaches all the limitations of claim 7. Rasmussen further teaches:
wherein the selected one or more keywords are detected immediately after a user hovers a mouse pointer over the selected one or more keywords in the functional keyword cloud and left clicks a mouse (see Rasmussen, Paragraph [0049], “This information may either be presented along with each record or separately (e.g., in a pop-up window) if a particular record is selected (e.g., by clicking on a record, placing a pointer over a record, etc.).” [The information may be viewed by placing a pointer over a record and selecting a record.]).
Regarding claim 16, Rasmussen in view of Raghavan, further in view of Dhar teaches all the limitations of claim 7. Dhar further teaches:
wherein the selected one or more keywords are detected immediately after a user presses, with either a finger or a stylus, the selected one or more keywords in the functional keyword cloud (see Dhar, Paragraph [0057], “The input/out device 304 may include but is not limited to display, a touchscreen, a mouse and associated controllers for the input/output devices.” [A touchscreen (i.e., with either a finger or a stylus) may be used to control the interface.]).
Claims 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rasmussen in view of Raghavan.
Regarding claim 17, Rasmussen teaches a method for displaying a single conversation thread based on messages from a plurality of platforms, comprising the steps of:
receiving a first plurality of messages from a first application on a first device (see Rasmussen, Paragraphs [0046]-[0047], “a first device 304 a may be the plaintiff's mobile phone, the second device 304 b may be the defendant's PC, etc. The client may then be allowed to select at least one device (e.g., 304 a) from the list. The client may also be presented with different ways of navigating the data, including browsing 306 a or searching 306 b. … Once a device has been selected, if selection is necessary, data stored on that device is presented to the client for review (hence, the term “reviewer”). This “presentation” can be done in a number of ways. In one embodiment of the present invention, the system presents the reviewer with a plurality of applications that are associated with the data. This can be seen in FIG. 4A, where the mobile device includes data from a plurality of applications 402, including message (e.g., text messaging), phone, email, photo (e.g., camera), Instagram™, Facebook™, Twitter™, and WhatsApp™ applications.” [Data from a first device from a first application may be received.]);
receiving a second plurality of messages from a second application on the first device (see Rasmussen, Paragraphs [0046]-[0047], “a first device 304 a may be the plaintiff's mobile phone, the second device 304 b may be the defendant's PC, etc. The client may then be allowed to select at least one device (e.g., 304 a) from the list. The client may also be presented with different ways of navigating the data, including browsing 306 a or searching 306 b. … Once a device has been selected, if selection is necessary, data stored on that device is presented to the client for review (hence, the term “reviewer”). This “presentation” can be done in a number of ways. In one embodiment of the present invention, the system presents the reviewer with a plurality of applications that are associated with the data. This can be seen in FIG. 4A, where the mobile device includes data from a plurality of applications 402, including message (e.g., text messaging), phone, email, photo (e.g., camera), Instagram™, Facebook™, Twitter™, and WhatsApp™ applications.” [Data from a second device from a second application may be received.]);
However, Rasmussen does not explicitly teach:
normalizing and combining the first plurality of messages and the second plurality of messages;
Dhar teaches:
normalizing and combining the first plurality of messages and the second plurality of messages (see Raghavan, Paragraphs [0015], [0024], “identifying groups of electronic messages, generating conversation documents using the groups of electronic messages, and indexing the conversation documents … As the content from different data sources may contain different data formats and document types, incoming documents may be converted to plain text or to a normalized data format.” [Messages from different applications may be normalized and combined.]);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Rasmussen (teaching system and method for analyzing, organizing, and presenting data stored on a mobile communication device) in view of Raghavan (teaching intelligent grouping of messages into conversation documents for ranking and retrieval), and arrived at a method that incorporates grouping messages. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination for the purposes of improving search ranking and retrieval (see Raghavan, Paragraph [0015]). In addition, both the references (Rasmussen and Raghavan) teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, such as information systems. The close relation between both the references highly suggests an expectation of success.
Regarding claim 18, Rasmussen in view of Raghavan teaches all the limitations of claim 17. Rasmussen further teaches:
wherein the single conversation thread comprises data from distinct applications on different devices (see Rasmussen, Paragraphs [0046]-[0047], “a first device 304 a may be the plaintiff's mobile phone, the second device 304 b may be the defendant's PC, etc. The client may then be allowed to select at least one device (e.g., 304 a) from the list. The client may also be presented with different ways of navigating the data, including browsing 306 a or searching 306 b. … Once a device has been selected, if selection is necessary, data stored on that device is presented to the client for review (hence, the term “reviewer”). This “presentation” can be done in a number of ways. In one embodiment of the present invention, the system presents the reviewer with a plurality of applications that are associated with the data. This can be seen in FIG. 4A, where the mobile device includes data from a plurality of applications 402, including message (e.g., text messaging), phone, email, photo (e.g., camera), Instagram™, Facebook™, Twitter™, and WhatsApp™ applications.” [Data from different devices, and different applications may be provided.]).
Regarding claim 19, Rasmussen in view of Raghavan teaches all the limitations of claim 17. Rasmussen further teaches:
wherein the first device was owned and operated by a first person distinct from a second person that owned and operated the second device (see Rasmussen, Paragraphs [0046]-[0047], “a first device 304 a may be the plaintiff's mobile phone, the second device 304 b may be the defendant's PC, etc. The client may then be allowed to select at least one device (e.g., 304 a) from the list. The client may also be presented with different ways of navigating the data, including browsing 306 a or searching 306 b.” [Different devices may be owned and operated by different people.]).
Regarding claim 20, Rasmussen in view of Raghavan teaches all the limitations of claim 17. Rasmussen further teaches:
wherein the single conversation thread comprises data from text messages and financial transactions (see Rasmussen, Paragraph [0070], “The system may identify text messages that are to or from Ardy (see, e.g., FIG. 5) and social media involving Ardy (see, e.g., FIG. 7). However, the system may also be configured to collect and organize information concerning Ardy, which may be extracted from various applications and/or records. For example, as shown in FIG. 8, a contact record on Ardy (802 a) (stored on the mobile device) may include his phone number (802 b), his email address (802 c), and his mailing address (802 d), and other records stored on the mobile device may include other identifiers, such as government issued IDs (802 e) (e.g., driver's license, social security number, etc.), financial information (802 f) (e.g., Visa, Paypal, Zelle, bank accounts, etc.), etc.” [Text messages from a first application on first device, and financial information (i.e., financial transactions) from a second application on a second device may be provided.]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUSAM TURKI SAMARA whose telephone number is (571)272-6803. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday, Alternate Fridays.
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, Apu Mofiz can be reached on (571)-272-4080. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
HUSAM TURKI SAMARA/Examiner, Art Unit 2161
/APU M MOFIZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2161