DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in response to Amendment filed on 06/15/2026. Claims 1, 9, and 18 are amended. Claims 1-18 remain pending in the application.
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant’s submission filed on 06/15/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments (pg. 8-11), filed on 06/15/2026, with respect to the 103 rejections of claims 1, 9, and 18 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the newly found reference being used in the current rejection.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed on 06/15/2026 has been entered.
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hull et al. (US 7328245 B1, hereinafter “Hull”) in view of LeVasseur et al. (US 2012/0198017 A1, hereinafter “LeVasseur”) further in view of Affronti et al. (US 2009/0319918 A1, hereinafter “Affronti”).
Regarding claim 1, Hull discloses:
A method comprising:
receiving from an application server, via interaction with a first user using a first user interface by a first communications agent in a first execution environment, request information for identifying a first service request (device receiving from system application software user command requesting directory of documents via user interface, Hull: Col. 5 lines 62-67, Col. 6 lines 1-9, Col. 7 lines 42-48);
sending, in a communication via an instant messaging network device generating and sending to PC via communication network such as Internet e-mail message containing request for directory of documents with search parameters and authentication information, device and PC each including user interface and associated with e-mail, Hull: Col. 5 lines 35-61, Col. 6 lines 5-9, Col. 7 lines 42-48); and
receiving, via the instant messaging network by the first execution environment in response to sending the communications request, resource data in a communications response based on a first service response generated by a first service application included in processing the first service request (device receiving from PC e-mail response containing representation of directory with meta-information of documents generated in response to incoming e-mail message, Hull: Col. 6 lines 34-59);
wherein performing at least one of the receiving the request information, the sending of the communications request, or the receiving the resource data in the communications response includes execution of an instruction by a processor (device and PC each comprising central processing unit, Hull: Col. 5 lines 35-48).
Hull does not explicitly disclose:
via an instant messaging network that supports real-time synchronous message exchange;
a second communications agent in a second execution environment representing a second user separate from the first user.
However, in the same field of endeavor, LeVasseur teaches:
a second communications agent in a second execution environment representing a second user separate from the first user (sending e-mail message from e-mail client running on sender computing device to recipient e-mail addresses associated with e-mail clients running on recipient computing devices, LeVasseur: [0022] lines 1-4, [0026] lines 1-7, FIG. 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hull in view of LeVasseur in order to further modify the method of sending communication request via e-mail from the teachings of Hull with the method of sending e-mail message to plurality of recipients from the teachings of LeVasseur.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because it would have improved security (LeVasseur: [0084] lines 1-13).
Hull-LeVasseur does not explicitly disclose:
via an instant messaging network that supports real-time synchronous message exchange.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Affronti teaches:
via an instant messaging network that supports real-time synchronous message exchange (communicating via communication network capable of supporting multi-modality chat interfaces including email and instant messaging, Affronti: [0017]-[0019]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hull-LeVasseur in view of Affronti in order to further modify the method of sending communication request via e-mail to plurality of recipients from the combined teachings of Hull-LeVasseur with the method of utilizing communication network capable of supporting multi-modality chat interfaces including email and instant messaging from the teachings of Affronti.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because it would have provided additional level of abstraction (Affronti: [0020]).
Regarding claim 2, Hull-LeVasseur-Affronti teaches all the claimed limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Hull-LeVasseur-Affronti further discloses:
wherein the method includes automatically identifying, based on the request information, a second communicant identifier that identifies the second user (PC identifying e-mail address serving as identifier of PC in incoming e-mail message, Hull: Col. 13 lines 29-42).
Regarding claim 3, Hull-LeVasseur-Affronti teaches all the claimed limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Hull-LeVasseur-Affronti further discloses:
wherein receiving request information may include receiving an input from the first user identifying an item, in a list of previously saved items, that identifies the request information (device receiving item selection from user for requesting directory of documents, Hull: Col. 13 lines 64-67, Col. 14 lines 1-3).
Regarding claim 4, Hull-LeVasseur-Affronti teaches all the claimed limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Hull-LeVasseur-Affronti further discloses:
wherein sending the communications request includes sending the communications request in the communication along with a communicant message addressed with a second communicant identifier that identifies the second user (device sending e-mail message containing request for directory of documents to e-mail address serving as identifier of PC, Hull: Col. 13 lines 29-42).
Regarding claim 5, Hull-LeVasseur-Affronti teaches all the claimed limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Hull-LeVasseur-Affronti further discloses:
wherein sending the communications request includes:
identifying a first plurality of access communicant identifiers each identifying a respective contactee in the communication (sending original e-mail messages to plurality of recipients, LeVasseur: [0028] lines 2-5, [0453] lines 1-6); and
sending the communications request to a plurality of access communications agents that respectively represent each contactee identified in the first plurality to process the first service request by at least the first service application (sending original e-mail messages to plurality of recipients, LeVasseur: [0028] lines 2-5, [0453] lines 1-6).
Regarding claim 6, Hull-LeVasseur-Affronti teaches all the claimed limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Hull-LeVasseur-Affronti further discloses:
wherein receiving the communications response includes receiving the communications response in a plurality of communications responses received in response to sending the communications request (receiving reply messages from plurality of recipients in response to original e-mail message, LeVasseur: [0028] lines 2-5).
Regarding claim 7, Hull-LeVasseur-Affronti teaches all the claimed limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Hull-LeVasseur-Affronti further discloses:
wherein receiving the communications response includes receiving the communications response along with a communicant message addressed with a first communicant identifier that identifies the first user (device receiving from PC e-mail response containing representation of directory with meta-information of documents generated in response to incoming e-mail message, Hull: Col. 6 lines 34-59).
Regarding claim 8, Hull-LeVasseur-Affronti teaches all the claimed limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Hull-LeVasseur-Affronti further discloses:
wherein the communications response is received by the first communications agent and the method further includes sending presentation information, based on the communications response, to a user agent operating in the first execution environment (device presenting representation of directory contained in received e-mail response to user via user interface, Hull: Col. 6 lines 60-66).
Regarding claim 9 (and similarly claim 18), Hull discloses:
A method comprising:
receiving, via an instant messaging network PC receiving from device via communication network such as Internet e-mail message containing request for directory of documents with search parameters and authentication information, device and PC each including user interface and associated with e-mail, Hull: Col. 5 lines 35-61, Col. 6 lines 5-9, Col. 7 lines 42-48);
identifying access information, by the second communications agent based on the second user (PC generating e-mail response containing representation of directory with meta-information of documents, Hull: Col. 6 lines 34-59); and
sending, via the network by the second execution environment in processing the communications request, a first service request along with the access information to a first service application (PC sending to device e-mail response containing representation of directory with meta-information of documents generated in response to incoming e-mail message, Hull: Col. 6 lines 34-59),
wherein performing at least one of the receiving the request information, the sending of the communications request, or the receiving the resource data in the communications response includes execution of an instruction by a processor (device and PC each comprising central processing unit, Hull: Col. 5 lines 35-48).
Hull does not explicitly disclose:
via an instant messaging network that supports real-time synchronous message exchange;
a first communications agent representing a first user separate from the second user.
However, in the same field of endeavor, LeVasseur teaches:
a first communications agent representing a first user separate from the second user (sending e-mail message from e-mail client running on sender computing device to recipient e-mail addresses associated with e-mail clients running on recipient computing devices, LeVasseur: [0022] lines 1-4, [0026] lines 1-7, FIG. 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hull in view of LeVasseur in order to further modify the method of sending communication request via e-mail from the teachings of Hull with the method of sending e-mail message to plurality of recipients from the teachings of LeVasseur.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because it would have improved security (LeVasseur: [0084] lines 1-13).
Hull-LeVasseur does not explicitly disclose:
via an instant messaging network that supports real-time synchronous message exchange.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Affronti teaches:
via an instant messaging network that supports real-time synchronous message exchange (communicating via communication network capable of supporting multi-modality chat interfaces including email and instant messaging, Affronti: [0017]-[0019]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hull-LeVasseur in view of Affronti in order to further modify the method of sending communication request via e-mail to plurality of recipients from the combined teachings of Hull-LeVasseur with the method of utilizing communication network capable of supporting multi-modality chat interfaces including email and instant messaging from the teachings of Affronti.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because it would have provided additional level of abstraction (Affronti: [0020]).
Regarding claim 10, Hull-LeVasseur-Affronti teaches all the claimed limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 9 above.
Hull-LeVasseur-Affronti further discloses:
wherein receiving the communications request includes receiving the communications request in the communication along with a communicant message addressed to the second user by a second communicant identifier in the communication (PC receiving e-mail message containing request for directory of documents at e-mail address serving as identifier of PC, Hull: Col. 13 lines 29-42); and
presenting the communicant message via an output device (PC displaying received e-mail message via e-mail application, Hull: Col. 5 lines 35-48).
Regarding claim 11, Hull-LeVasseur-Affronti teaches all the claimed limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 9 above.
Hull-LeVasseur-Affronti further discloses:
wherein receiving the communications request includes:
receiving a second communicant identifier that identifies the second user and at least one other communicant identifier in the communication (PC receiving e-mail message containing request for directory of documents at e-mail address serving as identifier of PC, Hull: Col. 13 lines 29-42); and
performing, based on the second communicant identifier and the at least one other communicant identifier, at least one of an authentication operation and an authorization operation by the second execution environment in response to receiving the communications request (PC authenticating user in response to receiving e-mail message, Hull: Col. 6 lines 34-37, Col. 8 lines 52-53).
Regarding claim 12, Hull-LeVasseur-Affronti teaches all the claimed limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 9 above.
Hull-LeVasseur-Affronti further discloses:
wherein receiving the communications request includes:
identifying in the communication a CC communicant identifier identifying a CC communicant in the communication (sending original e-mail message to recipients entered into CC field, LeVasseur: [0028] lines 2-5, [0453] lines 1-6); and
sending, based on a first service response received in response to sending the first service request, a communication to a communications agent representing the CC communicant (sending original e-mail message to recipients entered into CC field, LeVasseur: [0028] lines 2-5, [0453] lines 1-6).
Regarding claim 13, Hull-LeVasseur-Affronti teaches all the claimed limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 9 above.
Hull-LeVasseur-Affronti further discloses:
wherein identifying the access information includes:
detecting an account that the second user has with the first service application (PC receiving e-mail message containing request for directory of documents at e-mail address serving as identifier of PC, Hull: Col. 13 lines 29-42); and
identifying the access information based on the account (PC sending to device e-mail response containing representation of directory with meta-information of documents generated in response to incoming e-mail message, Hull: Col. 6 lines 34-37).
Regarding claim 14, Hull-LeVasseur-Affronti teaches all the claimed limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 9 above.
Hull-LeVasseur-Affronti further discloses:
wherein the access information is identified based on at least one of a first communicant identifier that identifies the first user and a type of the communications request (PC receiving e-mail message containing request for directory of documents at e-mail address serving as identifier of PC and desired format, Hull: Col. 7 lines 13-23, Col. 13 lines 29-42).
Regarding claim 15, Hull-LeVasseur-Affronti teaches all the claimed limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 9 above.
Hull-LeVasseur-Affronti further discloses:
wherein sending the first service request includes:
sending a plurality of service requests to a respective plurality of service applications (sending original e-mail message to plurality of recipients, LeVasseur: [0028] lines 2-5);
receiving a plurality of service responses in response to sending the respective plurality of service requests (receiving reply messages from plurality of recipients in response to original e-mail message, LeVasseur: [0028] lines 2-5); and
sending a communications response based on the plurality of service responses (sending reply message in response to reply messages in response to original e-mail message, LeVasseur: [0028] lines 2-5).
Regarding claim 16, Hull-LeVasseur-Affronti teaches all the claimed limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 9 above.
Hull-LeVasseur-Affronti further discloses:
receiving a first service response in response to sending the first service request (PC receiving from device e-mail message requesting selected documents in response to e-mail response containing representation of directory, Hull: Col. 13 lines 29-42); and
sending a communications response, based on the first service response, to the first execution environment (PC sending to device e-mail response containing requested documents in response to e-mail message, Hull: Col. 8 lines 63-67, Col. 9 lines 1-3).
Regarding claim 17, Hull-LeVasseur-Affronti teaches all the claimed limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 16 above.
Hull-LeVasseur-Affronti further discloses:
wherein sending the communications response includes sending the communications response along with a communicant message addressed with a first communicant identifier that identifies the first user (PC sending to device e-mail response containing representation of directory with meta-information of documents generated in response to incoming e-mail message, Hull: Col. 6 lines 34-59).
Conclusion
In the case of amendments, applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and support, for ascertaining the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GIL H. LEE whose telephone number is 571-272-3408. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri: 9am-6pm 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, Brian J. Gillis can be reached on 571-272-7952. 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.
/GIL H. LEE/
Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2446
Prosecution Insights