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 § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Mental Processes:
Claims 1, 4-7, 11-14, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claim(s) recite(s) “determining, by the computing device, a plurality of first rank values for corresponding email senders of the plurality of email senders”, “determining, by the computing device, a plurality of second rank values for corresponding email senders of a subset of the plurality of email sender”, and “receiving, by the computing device from the user, a plurality of decisions regarding corresponding email senders of the subset of the plurality of email senders”, which are directed to the abstract idea: "Mental Processes: concepts performed in the human mind
(including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)". This is explained in detail below.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to
significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional computer elements, which
are recited at a high level of generality, provide conventional computer functions that do not add
meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea.
The 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (hereinafter "2019 PEG")
published in January 2019 requires a three step analysis to determine if the claims are directed to
a judicial exception that is not "significantly more." Step 1 asks whether the claims are directed
to one of the four statutory categories of invention. Step 2A: Sets forth new procedure for Step
2A (called "revised Step 2A") under which a claim is not "directed to" a judicial exception
unless the claim satisfies a two-prong inquiry. Step 2B determines whether the claim recites
additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 1: Claim 1 is directed to "A method". Claim 7 is directed to
"A non-transitory computer-accessible storage medium having program instructions stored" and Claim 14 is directed to "A system". Claims 1, 4-7, 11-14, and 17-20 fall under statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A: The claimed invention is directed to the abstract idea: Mental Processes:
concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment,
opinion).
Independent claims 1, 7, and 14 recite features: “determining, by the computing device, a plurality of first rank values for corresponding email senders of the plurality of email senders”, “determining, by the computing device, a plurality of second rank values for corresponding email senders of a subset of the plurality of email sender”, and “receiving, by the computing device from the user, a plurality of decisions regarding corresponding email senders of the subset of the plurality of email senders.”
There is no technical detail in the limitations above to describe further the method determining the first rank values, the method of determining the second rank values, and the plurality of decisions regarding email senders. These features are recited at a high level of generality which does not transform the abstract idea into a patentable invention.
The limitations “determining, by the computing device, a plurality of first rank values for corresponding email senders of the plurality of email senders”, “determining, by the computing device, a plurality of second rank values for corresponding email senders of a subset of the plurality of email sender”, and “receiving, by the computing device from the user, a plurality of decisions regarding corresponding email senders of the subset of the plurality of email senders.”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation by mental processes but for recitation of generic computer components. Accordingly, the claims recite and abstract idea.
Further, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the
claim only recites additional element - using a computer processor and a non-transitory
computer memory to perform the determining, ranking, storing, and receiving steps. The
computer processor and non-transitory computer memory in these steps is related at a high-level
of generality (i.e., as a generic device performing a generic computer function of performing an
action based on received input) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the
exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful
limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to
significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered
both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the
abstract idea. Generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions
that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than
implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical
application, the additional element of using a computer processor and a non-transitory computer
memory to perform the determining, ranking, storing, and receiving steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Since all of the elements fail to provide an inventive concept when considered alone, and
in combination the claimed invention is directed towards a judicial exception of an abstract idea
and claims 1, 7, and 14 are not patent eligible.
Additionally, the dependent claims 4-6, 11-13, and 17-20 have been considered and found to be directed towards the same abstract idea, mental processes, without significantly more as indicated above.
Dependent claims:
Claims 4, 11, and 17: wherein determining the plurality of first rank values includes determining a particular first rank value of the plurality of first rank values using a number of email messages sent by a corresponding email sender of the plurality of email senders.
Claims 5, 12, and 18: wherein determining the plurality of first rank values includes determining a particular first rand value of the plurality of first rank values using a number of email messages sent by a corresponding email sender of the plurality of email senders that have not been read by the user.
Claims 6, 13, and 20: determining, by the computing device, a plurality of reputations for corresponding email senders of the subset of the plurality of email senders using a plurality of IP-addresses associated with the subset of the plurality of email senders.
Claim 19: wherein determining the plurality of email senders for the user includes determining, by the system, the plurality of email senders in response to determining a particular time period has elapsed.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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, 4, 7, 11, 14, 17, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US20090094340A1 (Gillai).
Regarding claim 1, Gillai discloses a method, comprising: determining, by a computing device, a plurality of email senders for a user ([Fig. 4 ref. no. 410 monitoring actions of a plurality of email users of the email system]);
determining, by the computing device, a plurality of first rank values for corresponding email senders of the plurality of email senders ([Fig. 4 ref. no. 420 ranking a plurality of emails sent or received by at least one of the email users based on the monitored actions of the plurality of email users]);
determining, by the computing device, a plurality of second rank values for corresponding email senders of a subset of the plurality of email sender ([0049-53] the ranking . . . can include . . . at least a subset of the plurality of email users [Fig. 3] Rating (high, med, low, none), Status (unread, forwarded, read));
displaying, by the computing device on a user device associated with the user, the subset of the plurality of email senders in an order based on the plurality of second rank values ([Fig. 3 User, Status] [0047] explicit ranking widget for an email, allowing the user to raise or lower the user ranking [0025] Based on the tracked actions, the email system can rank emails in order of perceived importance.);
receiving, by the computing device from the user, a plurality of decisions regarding corresponding email senders of the subset of the plurality of email senders ([0027] recipients receive and act on the initial email [0061] email sender and receiver patterns are tracked);
and performing, by the computing device, an action associated with a particular email sender of the subset of the plurality of email senders based on a corresponding decision of the plurality of decisions ([0036] actions are performed on the email, including responses, whether it is deleted or forwarded, how and where it is filed, whether a specific deliverable is requested and if the deliverable has been successfully and satisfactorily accomplished. Actions can include, but are not limited to, forwarding, replying, deleting, assigning, deferring and resolving.).
Regarding claim 4, Gillai discloses wherein determining the plurality of first rank values includes determining a particular first rank value of the plurality of first rank values using a number of email messages sent by a corresponding email sender of the plurality of email senders ([0026] score/ranking and thereby the priority (ranking) of the initial email [Fig. 4 ref. no. 420 ranking a plurality of emails sent or received by at least one of the email users based on the monitored actions of the plurality of email users] [0018] email ranking engine 212 that ranks electronic mails).
Regarding claim 7, Gillai discloses a non-transitory computer-accessible storage medium having program instructions stored therein that, in response to execution by a computer system, cause the computer system to perform operations including ([0006] program is operable on one or more servers):
determining, by a computing device, a plurality of email senders for a user ([Fig. 4 ref. no. 410 monitoring actions of a plurality of email users of the email system]);
determining, by the computing device, a plurality of first rank values for corresponding email senders of the plurality of email senders ([Fig. 4 ref. no. 420 ranking a plurality of emails sent or received by at least one of the email users based on the monitored actions of the plurality of email users]);
determining, by the computing device, a plurality of second rank values for corresponding email senders of a subset of the plurality of email sender ([0049-53] the ranking . . . can include . . . at least a subset of the plurality of email users [Fig. 3] Rating (high, med, low, none), Status (unread, forwarded, read));
displaying, by the computing device on a user device associated with the user, the subset of the plurality of email senders in an order based on the plurality of second rank values ([Fig. 3 User, Status] [0047] explicit ranking widget for an email, allowing the user to raise or lower the user ranking [0025] Based on the tracked actions, the email system can rank emails in order of perceived importance.);
receiving, by the computing device from the user, a plurality of decisions regarding corresponding email senders of the subset of the plurality of email senders ([0027] recipients receive and act on the initial email [0061] email sender and receiver patterns are tracked);
and performing, by the computing device, an action associated with a particular email sender of the subset of the plurality of email senders based on a corresponding decision of the plurality of decisions ([0036] actions are performed on the email, including responses, whether it is deleted or forwarded, how and where it is filed, whether a specific deliverable is requested and if the deliverable has been successfully and satisfactorily accomplished. Actions can include, but are not limited to, forwarding, replying, deleting, assigning, deferring and resolving.).
Regarding claim 14, Gillai discloses a system, comprising: one or more memory circuits configured to store instructions ([0006] embodiment includes an email management program for operating an email system. The program is operable on one or more servers);
and one or more processor circuits configured to receive the instructions from the one or more memory circuits and execute the instructions to cause the system to perform operations including:
determining, by the system, a plurality of email senders for a user ([Fig. 4 ref. no. 410 monitoring actions of a plurality of email users of the email system]);
determining, by the system, a plurality of first rank values for corresponding email senders of the plurality of email senders ([Fig. 4 ref. no. 420 ranking a plurality of emails sent or received by at least one of the email users based on the monitored actions of the plurality of email users]);
determining, by the system, a plurality of second rank values for corresponding email senders of a subset of the plurality of email sender ([0049-53] the ranking . . . can include . . . at least a subset of the plurality of email users [Fig. 3] Rating (high, med, low, none), Status (unread, forwarded, read));
displaying, by the system on a user device associated with the user, the subset of the plurality of email senders in an order based on the plurality of second rank values ([Fig. 3 User, Status] [0047] explicit ranking widget for an email, allowing the user to raise or lower the user ranking [0025] Based on the tracked actions, the email system can rank emails in order of perceived importance.);
receiving, by the system from the user, a plurality of decisions regarding corresponding email senders of the subset of the plurality of email senders ([0027] recipients receive and act on the initial email [0061] email sender and receiver patterns are tracked);
and performing, by the system, an action associated with a particular email sender of the subset of the plurality of email senders based on a corresponding decision of the plurality of decisions ([0036] actions are performed on the email, including responses, whether it is deleted or forwarded, how and where it is filed, whether a specific deliverable is requested and if the deliverable has been successfully and satisfactorily accomplished. Actions can include, but are not limited to, forwarding, replying, deleting, assigning, deferring and resolving.).
Regarding claim 19, Gillai discloses wherein determining the plurality of email senders for the user includes determining, by the system, the plurality of email senders in response to determining a particular time period has elapsed ([0025] IEMS tracks responsiveness of email users. The responsiveness can be measured by time).
Regarding claims 11 and 17, the limitations of claims 11 and 17 are rejected in the analysis of claim 4 above and these claims are rejected on that basis.
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 (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 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 2, 8, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20090094340A1 (Gillai) in view of US20060271631A1 (Qureshi).
Regarding claim 2, Gillai teaches the limitations of claim 1.
Gillai does not explicitly teach wherein performing the action includes sending, by the computing device based on a reputation of the particular email sender, an unsubscribe signal to the particular email sender.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Qureshi teaches wherein performing the action includes sending, by the computing device based on a reputation of the particular email sender, an unsubscribe signal to the particular email sender.
Qureshi teaches wherein performing the action includes sending, by the computing device based on a reputation (safe) of the particular email sender, an unsubscribe signal to the particular email sender ([0052] if the message header includes unsubscribe information, the message is likely sent as part of a mailing list. In this case, an interface is provided to enable the user to unsubscribe from the mailing list. [0072] it is important to ensure that the unsubscribe option is only presented to users for "safe" emails).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the ranking widget of Gillai per the message including unsubscribe information of Qureshi to allow the modified invention to disable unsubscribe hyperlinks and attachments as well as prevent certain portions of the message from being displayed to an email user depending on the safety level of the message ([0007] Qureshi).
Regarding claims 8 and 15, the limitations of claims 8 and 15 are rejected in the analysis of claim 2 above and these claims are rejected on that basis.
Claim(s) 3, 6, 9-10, 13, 16, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20090094340A1 (Gillai) in view of US20230068946A1 (McCarthy).
Regarding claim 3, Gillai teaches the limitations of claim 1.
Gillai does not explicitly teach wherein performing the action includes moving, by the computing device based on a reputation of the particular email sender, future email message received from the particular email sender to a trash.
However, in the same field of endeavor, McCarthy teaches wherein performing the action includes moving, by the computing device based on a reputation of the particular email sender, future email message received from the particular email sender to a trash folder.
McCarthy teaches wherein performing the action includes moving, by the computing device based on a reputation of the particular email sender, future email message received from the particular email sender to a trash folder ([0048] can include trash or delete a workflow . . . querying the reputation of an IP address . . . identifying an email type . . . can provide access to submitting email if legitimate or if spam; initiating manual review or reconnaissance . . . can provide access to . . . deleting email, deleting submitter email).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the ranking widget of Gillai per the querying of the reputation of an IP address to allow the modified invention to perform cybersecurity threat management through antivirus and anti-phishing applications ([0023] McCarthy).
Regarding claim 6, Gillai teaches the limitations of claim 1.
Gillai does not explicitly teach determining, by the computing device, a plurality of reputations for corresponding email senders of the subset of the plurality of email senders using a plurality of IP-addresses associated with the subset of the plurality of email senders.
McCarthy teaches determining, by the computing device, a plurality of reputations for corresponding email senders of the subset of the plurality of email senders using a plurality of IP-addresses associated with the subset of the plurality of email senders.
McCarthy teaches determining, by the computing device, a plurality of reputations for corresponding email senders of the subset of the plurality of email senders using a plurality of IP-addresses associated with the subset of the plurality of email senders ([0048] querying the reputation of an IP address . . . identifying an email type . . . can provide access to submitting email if legitimate or if spam).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the ranking widget of Gillai per the querying of the reputation of an IP address to allow the modified invention to perform cybersecurity threat management through antivirus and anti-phishing applications ([0023] McCarthy).
Regarding claim 10, Gillai teaches the limitations of claim 1.
Gillai does not explicitly teach wherein the reputation of the particular email sender is based on an IP-address associated with the particular email sender.
McCarthy teaches wherein the reputation of the particular email sender is based on an IP-address associated with the particular email sender ([0048] querying the reputation of an IP address . . . identifying an email type . . . can provide access to submitting email if legitimate or if spam).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the ranking widget of Gillai per the querying of the reputation of an IP address to allow the modified invention to perform cybersecurity threat management through antivirus and anti-phishing applications ([0023] McCarthy).
Regarding claims 9 and 16, the limitations of claims 9 and 16 are rejected in the analysis of claim 3 above and these claims are rejected on that basis.
Regarding claims 13 and 20, the limitations of claims 13 and 20 are rejected in the analysis of claim 6 above and these claims are rejected on that basis.
Claim(s) 5, 12, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20090094340A1 (Gillai) in view of US20080228676A1 (Isozaki).
Regarding claim 5, Gillai teaches the limitations of claim 1.
Gillai does not explicitly teach wherein determining the plurality of first rank values includes determining a particular first rand value of the plurality of first rank values using a number of email messages sent by a corresponding email sender of the plurality of email senders that have not been read by the user.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Isozaki teaches wherein determining the plurality of first rank values includes determining a particular first rand value of the plurality of first rank values using a number of email messages sent by a corresponding email sender of the plurality of email senders that have not been read by the user.
Isozaki teaches wherein determining the plurality of first rank values includes determining a particular first rand ([RAND()/random function]) value of the plurality of first rank values using a number of email messages sent by a corresponding email sender of the plurality of email senders that have not been read by the user ([0027] when an email sender is Mr. A, it is found from the learned data table 30 shown in FIG. 3 that this email sender is associated with Rank 1, so the value of the random variable X1 is 2 . . . the certainty factor in which the email is important, is calculated to be 0.8. [0028]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the ranking widget of Gillai per the random variable of Isozaki to allow the modified invention to express a quantitative relationship between respective emails ([0025] Isozaki).
Regarding claims 12 and 18, the limitations of claims 12 and 18 are rejected in the analysis of claim 5 above and these claims are rejected on that basis.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Noah Beamon whose telephone number is (571) 272-5443. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri from 9:00am to 4:00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Glenton Burgess, can be reached at telephone number (571) 272-3949. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/NOAH BEAMON/Examiner, Art Unit 2454
/RACHEL J HACKENBERG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2454
Prosecution Insights