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 .
Applicant amended claims 1-5, 7-9, 12-15, and 18-20 in the Request for Continued Examination filed on 06/30/2026. Claims 6, 17, and 23-24 are cancelled.
Claims 1-5, 7-16, and 18-22 remain pending.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 06/30/2026 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
It is hereby acknowledged that the following papers have been received and placed of record in the file:
Information Disclosure Statement(s) as received on 06/30/2026 is/are considered by the Examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-5, 7-16, and 18-22 filed on 06/30/2026 have been considered but they are deemed to be moot in view of new grounds of rejection.
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.
Claims 1, 8, 10, 12, 19, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Rensburg et al. (US 9,203,954 B1), hereinafter Van Rensburg, in view of KO et al. (US 2013/0267172 A1), hereinafter KO, and further in view of Hobbs (US 8,804,508 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Van Rensburg discloses
A method comprising:
receiving, by a display optimization engine platform (cloud phone system server 306, FIG. 3), from an enterprise an indication of a requested communication between the enterprise (caller’s device 102, FIG. 1) and a communications device associated with a consumer of the enterprise (callee’s device 104, FIG. 1)(Col. 4, lines 65-66: the cloud phone system server can receive an incoming call at incoming call handler);
in response to receiving the requested communication, perform the following:
selecting, by the display optimization engine platform, from a database (database 310/304, FIG. 3), branding elements (conventional Caller ID information/enhanced Caller ID information) associated with the enterprise (Col. 5, lines 17-20: identify conventional Caller ID information in conventional Caller ID database and a plurality of enhanced Caller ID information items pertaining to the identified caller stored in another database), the selecting being based at least in part on characteristics of the consumer (attributes of the callee) (Col. 2, lines 24-27: selection of enhanced Caller ID information about the caller delivered to the callee can be based on one or more attributes of the callee);
sending, by the display optimization engine platform, the selected branding elements to the selected communications channel for rendering on the communications device with the requested communication (Col. 4, lines 17-19: delivering the selected enhanced Caller ID information item(s) to electronic communications device of the callee).
Van Rensburg does not explicitly disclose
selecting, by the display optimization engine platform, a communications channel of the plurality of communications channels for provision of the branding elements based on the respective capabilities of each of the plurality of communications channels and bit content of the selected branding elements, wherein the selected communications channel is a cellular communications channel.
However, KO discloses
selecting, by the display optimization engine platform, a communications channel of the plurality of communications channels for provision of the branding elements based on the respective capabilities of each of the plurality of communications channels and bit content of the selected branding elements (size of the content), wherein the selected communications channel is a cellular communications channel ([0121]: determine the communication channel based on at least one of the kind of the content and the size of the content; when the size of the content is equal to or less than 20KB, the first device determines that the content is transferred through an NFC channel; when the size of the content is greater than 20KB, the first device determines that the content is transferred through at least one of Zigbee, Bluetooth, and WIFI communication channels; Zigbee, Bluetooth, WiFi, NFC channels corresponds to cellular communications channel; & [0018]: the selecting may include selecting the communication protocol based on the size of the content and a bandwidth of the communication protocol; & [0051]: the first device 1000 may adaptively select one or more of the communication units for transferring the content based on a kind of the content, a size of the content, and characteristics of the communication modes of the communication units, such as bandwidth of the communication modes).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the feature of KO to Van Rensburg, because Van Rensburg discloses delivering data to callee/user (Col. 4, lines 17-19) and KO further suggests select a communication channel/protocol to delivery data based on size of the content and bandwidth of the communication protocol ([0121] & [0018]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize the teachings of KO in the Van Rensburg system in order to select the best/suitable communication channel to deliver data.
Van Rensburg and KO do not explicitly disclose
obtaining, by the display optimization engine platform, respective capabilities of each communications channel of a plurality of communications channels, wherein the respective capabilities of each communications channel of the plurality of communications channel comprise a channel latency and a channel bandwidth.
However, Hobbs discloses
obtaining, by the display optimization engine platform, respective capabilities of each communications channel of a plurality of communications channels, wherein the respective capabilities of each communications channel of the plurality of communications channel comprise a channel latency and a channel bandwidth (Col. 12, lines 12-18: characteristics including available channel bandwidth, and optionally round trip latency are determined for each egress channel).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the feature of Hobbs to Van Rensburg and KO, because Van Rensburg and KO disclose delivering data to callee/user (Van Rensburg: Col. 4, lines 17-19) and Hobbs further suggests determine available channel bandwidth and round trip latency for each egress channel (Col. 12, lines 12-18).
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize the teachings of Hobbs in the Van Rensburg and KO system in order to select the best channel.
Regarding claim 8, Van Rensburg, KO, and Hobbs disclose the method described in claim 1. Van Rensburg, KO, and Hobbs further disclose
the selecting the branding elements is further based, at least in part, on technical transmission throughput characteristics associated with the selected communication channel, the technical transmission throughput characteristics including a bandwidth of the communications channel (KO: [0018]: the selecting may include selecting the communication protocol based on the size of the content and a bandwidth of the communication protocol; & [0051]: the first device 1000 may adaptively select one or more of the communication units for transferring the content based on a kind of the content, a size of the content, and characteristics of the communication modes of the communication units, such as bandwidth of the communication modes).
Regarding claim 10, Van Rensburg, KO, and Hobbs disclose the method described in claim 1. Van Rensburg further discloses
the requested communication is a telephone call (Col. 4, lines 65-66: the cloud phone system server can receive an incoming call at incoming call handler) or a Voice Over IP (VoIP) call.
Regarding claim 12, the limitations of claim 12 are rejected in the analysis of claim 1 above, and this claim is rejected on that basis.
Regarding claim 19, the limitations of claim 19 are rejected in the analysis of claim 8 above, and this claim is rejected on that basis.
Regarding claim 21, the limitations of claim 21 are rejected in the analysis of claim 10 above, and this claim is rejected on that basis.
Claims 2 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Rensburg in view of KO, in view of Hobbs, and further in view of Batiz (US 2018/0019936 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Van Rensburg, KO, and Hobbs disclose the method described in claim 1. Van Rensburg, KO, and Hobbs do not explicitly disclose
the selecting the communications channel is further based, at least in part, on estimated modifications to the branding elements by the communications channel.
However, Batiz discloses
the selecting the communications channel is further based, at least in part, on estimated modifications to the branding elements by the communications channel ([0012]: estimate how the specified technical characteristic affect perception of content provided by the communication channel).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the feature of Batiz to Van Rensburg, KO, and Hobbs, because Van Rensburg, KO, and Hobbs disclose delivering information to callee/user (Van Rensburg: Col. 4, lines 17-19) and Batiz further suggests estimate how the specified technical characteristic affect perception of content provided by the communication channel ([0012]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize the teachings of Batiz in the Van Rensburg, KO, and Hobbs system in order to select appropriate channel based on estimated affect perception of content provided by channel.
Regarding claim 13, the limitations of claim 13 are rejected in the analysis of claim 2 above, and this claim is rejected on that basis.
Claims 3, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Rensburg in view of KO, in view of Hobbs, and further in view of Ross et al. (US 9,432,929 B1), hereinafter Ross.
Regarding claim 3, Van Rensburg, KO, and Hobbs disclose the method described in claim 1. Van Rensburg, KO, and Hobbs do not explicitly disclose
the selecting the communications channel is further based, at least in part, on a routing efficiency of the communications channel.
However, Ross discloses
the selecting the communications channel is further based, at least in part, on a routing efficiency of the communications channel (Col. 31, lines 18-20: selecting channels for communications based on network latency data and cost data).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the feature of Ross to Van Rensburg, KO, and Hobbs, because Van Rensburg, KO, and Hobbs disclose delivering information to callee/user (Van Rensburg: Col. 4, lines 17-19) and Ross further suggests select a delivery channel for delivery to user based on network latency data (Col. 31, lines 18-20).
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize the teachings of Ross in the Van Rensburg, KO, and Hobbs system in order to select the most suitable channel for delivery.
Regarding claim 14, the limitations of claim 14 are rejected in the analysis of claim 3 above, and this claim is rejected on that basis.
Claims 4 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Rensburg in view of KO, in view of Hobbs, in view of Hammad et al. (US 2010/0274689 A1), hereinafter Hammad, and further in view of Green et al. (US 2016/0066246 A1), hereinafter Green.
Regarding claim 4, Van Rensburg, KO, and Hobbs disclose the method described in claim 1. Van Rensburg, KO, and Hobbs do not explicitly disclose
selecting a subset of the plurality of communications channels for provision of the selected branding elements based on the respective capabilities.
However, Hammad discloses
selecting a subset of the plurality of communications channels for provision of the selected branding elements based on the respective capabilities ([0132]: select one or more delivery channels based on predetermined rules).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the feature of Hammad to Van Rensburg, KO, and Hobbs, because Van Rensburg, KO, and Hobbs disclose delivering information to callee/user (Van Rensburg: Col. 4, lines 17-19) and Hammad further suggests select delivery channels for delivery to user ([0132]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize the teachings of Hammad in the Van Rensburg, KO, and Hobbs system in order to make delivery more efficient as suggested by Hammad ([0004]).
Van Rensburg, KO, Hobbs, and Hammad do not explicitly disclose
wherein the sending the selected branding elements includes sending the selected branding elements using the selected subset of the plurality of communications channels for simultaneous rendering on the communications device.
However, Green further discloses
sending message using plurality of communications channels simultaneously ([0036]: select and route the message to the destination on multiple communication channels simultaneously).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the feature of Green to Van Rensburg, KO, Hobbs, and Hammad, because Van Rensburg, KO, Hobbs, and Hammad disclose delivering information to callee/user (Van Rensburg: Col. 4, lines 17-19) and Green further suggests select and route message to user on multiple communication channels simultaneously ([0036]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize the teachings of Green in the Van Rensburg, KO, Hobbs, and Hammad system in order to provide more reliable delivery of messages as suggested by Green ([0002]).
Regarding claim 15, the limitations of claim 15 are rejected in the analysis of claim 4 above, and this claim is rejected on that basis.
Claims 5 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Rensburg in view of KO, in view of Hobbs, and further in view of Chaudhri et al. (US 2013/0325922 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Van Rensburg, KO, and Hobbs disclose the method described in claim 1. V Van Rensburg, KO, and Hobbs do not explicitly disclose
the communications device includes a plurality of communications devices, each of the plurality of communications devices being associated with the consumer, and
wherein the sending the branding elements includes sending the branding elements to the plurality of communications devices.
However, Chaudhri does not explicitly disclose
the communications device includes a plurality of communications devices, each of the plurality of communications devices being associated with the consumer (page 4, [0034]: multiple devices of a single user), and
wherein the sending the branding elements includes sending the branding elements to the plurality of communications devices (page 4, [0034]: send notifications to multiple devices of a single user).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the feature of Chaudhri to Van Rensburg, KO, and Hobbs, because Van Rensburg, KO, and Hobbs disclose delivering information to callee/user (Van Rensburg: Col. 4, lines 17-19) and Chaudhri further suggests send notifications to multiple devices of the user ( [0034]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize the teachings of Chaudhri in the Van Rensburg, KO, and Hobbs system in order to increase the probability that a user would see the notification as soon as possible.
Regarding claim 16, the limitations of claim 16 are rejected in the analysis of claim 5 above and this claim is rejected on that basis.
Claims 7 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Rensburg in view of KO, in view of Hobbs, and further in view of George et al. (US 2020/0374248 A1), hereinafter George.
Regarding claim 7, Van Rensburg, KO, and Hobbs disclose the method described in claim 1. Van Rensburg, KO, and Hobbs do not explicitly disclose
the selecting the communications channel is further based on one or more of artificial intelligence-based decision making or learned experience.
However, George discloses
the selecting the communications channel is further based on one or more of artificial intelligence-based decision making or learned experience ([0017]: determine a communication channel by which the second content item is delivered based on a pre-trained machine-learning model).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the feature of George to Van Rensburg, KO, and Hobbs, because Van Rensburg, KO, and Hobbs disclose delivering information to callee/user (Van Rensburg: Col. 4, lines 17-19) and George further suggests determine a channel for delivery based on a pre-trained machine-learning model ([0017]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize the teachings of George in the Van Rensburg, KO, and Hobbs system in order to select the most suitable channel for delivery.
Regarding claim 18, the limitations of claim 18 are rejected in the analysis of claim 7 above, and this claim is rejected on that basis.
Claims 9 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Rensburg in view of KO, in view of Hobbs, and further in view of Harnish et al. (US 9,134,948 B1), hereinafter Harnish.
Regarding claim 9, Van Rensburg, KO, and Hobbs disclose the method described in claim 1. Van Rensburg, KO, and Hobbs do not explicitly disclose
selecting the branding elements is further based, at least in part, on display specifications of the communications device.
However, Harnish discloses
selecting the branding elements is further based, at least in part, on display specifications of the communications device (Col. 7, lines 54-59: providing one of the versions of the image to a user device based on a determined display capability of the user device).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the feature of Harnish to Van Rensburg, KO, and Hobbs, because Van Rensburg, KO, and Hobbs disclose delivering information to callee/user (Van Rensburg: Col. 4, lines 17-19) and Harnish further suggests provide a version of the image to user device based on a determined display capability of the user device (Col. 7, lines 54-59).
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize the teachings of Harnish in the Van Rensburg, KO, and Hobbs system in order to select the most suitable image for the user.
Regarding claim 20, the limitations of claim 20 are rejected in the analysis of claim 9 above, and this claim is rejected on that basis.
Claims 11 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Rensburg in view of KO, in view of Hobbs, and further in view of Hammad.
Regarding claim 11, Van Rensburg, KO, and Hobbs disclose the method described in claim 1. Van Rensburg, KO, and Hobbs do not explicitly disclose
the requested communication is a text message or a multimedia message.
However, Hammad discloses
the requested communication is a text message or a multimedia message ([0134]: notification server computer generates an alert message for delivery to the user).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the feature of Hammad to Van Rensburg, KO, and Hobbs, because Van Rensburg, KO, and Hobbs disclose delivering information to callee/user (Van Rensburg: Col. 4, lines 17-19) and Hammad further suggests generate an alert message and select a delivery channel for delivery to user ([0132] & [0134]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize the teachings of Hammad in the Van Rensburg, KO, and Hobbs system in order to make delivery more efficient as suggested by Hammad ([0004]).
Regarding claim 22, the limitations of claim 22 are rejected in the analysis of claim 11 above and this claim is rejected on that basis.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Eberle et al. (US 7,061,929 B1). Desired bandwidth and latency characteristics of packets are only examples of characteristics which can be used to select a channel for transmission.
Rawson (US 2010/0011012 A1). Multiple virtual channels may be established for each receiving device, where the central server uses the compression profile to define each virtual channel to provide different delivery, bandwidth, latency and data fidelity guarantees appropriate for the type of data stream being transmitted end-to-end.
Dick et al. (US 2002/0172174 A1). Determines the best NAD channel based on some combination function of latency, bandwidth, load, and cost ([0027]).
Karaoguz et al. (US 2006/0025148 A1). Choose a channel that best suits their needs based on criteria such as pricing, latency, and/or other factors ([0029]).
Grimm et al. (US 2012/0087292 A1). Selection of a channel is based on a channel with a low latency ([0023]).
Lee et al. (US 9,860,742 B2). Determine a data version of the streaming content to be requested based on available bandwidth of communication channel.
Karp et al. (US 10,630,840 B1). Select one or more messaging channels based on predictive machine learning for determining one or more implicit preference of the user based on a history of interactions with the user.
Cowan et al. (US 10,419,829 B1). Generate a score for the particular channel by the trained machine learning system based on input and selecting the particular channel from a plurality of candidate channels based on the score.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAYLEE J HUANG whose telephone number is (571)272-0080. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM.
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, Joon H Hwang can be reached on 571-272-4036. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
Kaylee Huang
09/05/2026
/KAYLEE J HUANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2447
Prosecution Insights