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 .
Status of Claims
This Non-Final action is in reply to the RCE filed 12/11/2025.
Claims 1, 2, 16 and 17 have been amended.
Claims 8-15 were previously withdrawn from consideration.
Claims 21-26 have been withdrawn.
Claims 1-7 and 16-20 are pending.
Request for Continued Examination
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/11/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments/Remarks
As it relates to the 35USC 101 rejection, applicant’s arguments have been reconsidered but are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the claims are directed to techniques for associating and analyzing data from multiple communication sessions performed on different computing devices and over different communication channels. Examiner evaluated the claims based on Mayo/Alice analysis under USC 101 two-step framework and provided the results of the analysis during examination as noted in the prior Final action dated 9/11/2025. Applicant avers that amended independent claims 1 and 16 are not directed to managing personal behavior or relationships or relationships or interactions between people, and that they recite additional elements beyond the alleged abstract ideas, specifically the new features, “determining [that] the first user-initiated communication session and [a] second user-initiated communication session are interactions within a related group of interactions," "determining [a] performance metric for the communication initiator " and "initiating and performing a marketing effort including the communication initiator” allow the system to determine higher confidence levels associated with specific communication initiator, used to calculate attribution performance pay amounts for online advertisements…Thus the claim features also provide technical improvements over conventional marketing effort analytics”. Applicant subsequently states, “the new dependent claims further integrate the alleged abstract idea into a practical application”. Examiner asserts that the invention is directed toward the abstract idea for receiving communication records, determining a communication initiator, determining a transaction and that communication sessions are interactions within a related group of interactions, determining a confidence level for a causal association, a performance metric for the communication initiator, initiating and performing a marketing effort including the communication initiator in a computing environment. Applicant’s specification emphasizes techniques for determining associations between different interactive communication sessions performed between users and an organization, over multiple different communication channels. It further discusses receiving and comparing user data from communication records captured via different communication channel systems, determining confidence levels for associations between different communication sessions; and associating communication initiators and/or communication results with individual communication sessions. (¶6). The specification generally teaches that a computer system comprises one or more processors, and one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform various operations (¶8). The specification further teaches a computing environment including a multi- channel analysis system configured to analyze communication records from multiple communication systems, and that the various operations performed by the computing systems described herein (e.g., multi-channel analysis system 202, etc.) may be implemented within a datacenter including one or more servers or devices similar to server 500 (¶10, ¶64). The specification also discloses that the computer server is capable of executing program components for implementing the various functionality and that similar or identical computer architectures may be implemented via workstations, desktop or laptop computers, tablet computers, network appliances, mobile devices (e.g., smartphones, etc.) or other computing device, and/or virtual machines or cloud-based computing solutions, any or all of which may execute any combination of the software components (¶55). Hence, the invention pertains to (i) commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising; marketing; or sales activities or behaviors; business relations) and (ii) managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) and directed to certain methods of organizing human activity groupings of abstract ideas. Applicant’s computing components (“computer system”, “first communication channel”, “second communication channel”, [claim 1], “non-transitory computer-readable media”, “processor” [claim 16]) for receiving, determining, initiating and performing are well-known, performing routine and conventionally activity, and generically used as a tool (see ¶10, ¶55, ¶64 of applicant’s disclosure) for data gathering, and analysis to further process received information and to implement the abstract idea. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ22d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Hence, applicant has not shown an improvement in the computer functionality itself, or any specific computer technology; nor do the claim limitations integrate the abstract idea into any practical application under the guidance of MPEP section 2106.04(d) or 2106.05(a). Examiner maintains the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea.
With respect to the 35USC 103 rejection, applicant argues the amended and new claim limitations which were not previously presented nor applied against the prior art. Examiner has modified the rejection to further explain how the claims are being interpreted and addressed each of applicant’s claims as noted below in this Non-Final action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-7 and 16-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention
Claims 1 and 16 recite, “determining…a performance metric for the communication initiator, based at least in part on the confidence level and a value of the transaction”. Examiner was unable to find support in the specification for this limitation, nor does the specification demonstrate that applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed function since the invention is not described in sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. For example, the specification as filed does not properly disclose any rules logic, steps, algorithms, mathematical formulas, calculations, equations for how a performance metric is determined based on a confidence level and value of a transaction. The most relevant discussion in applicant’s disclosure generally occurs in ¶31: “Additional performance metrics that may be calculated using the techniques described herein include operationally related metrics that may apply to service transactions, claim filings, changing a vehicle on a policy, etc. For example, a time to purchase metric corresponds to how long it takes a potential customer to purchase the product from starting the initial quote until a payment was made”; ¶51: “confidence levels may or may not be static. For example, different (e.g., higher or lower) confidence levels may be applied for linking communication sessions, depending on the performance metric(s) for which the linking is being used. For example, when calculating an attribution performance pay amount for a vendor of an online advertisement, a higher confidence level for linking communication sessions may be applied to improve the accuracy and confidence associated with the metric”; ¶69: “The linking and corresponding confidence levels can be used to analyze the value and performance of individual communication initiators in terms of measurable results”. However, it does not adequately describe how the performance metric is determined based on a confidence level and value of a transaction; nor does it provide the requisite criteria for how a value of a transaction or confidence level is/are determined and used to determine a performance metric. The claim defines the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the disclosure fails to sufficiently identify how the function is performed or the result is achieved.
Applicant’s specification only generically describes using data/information (operationally related metrics that may apply to service transactions, claim filings, changing a vehicle on a policy, etc) to calculate performance metrics, but fails to provide the requisite rules, steps, algorithm (i.e. respective weight(s), criteria, values, mathematical formula/equation/calculation(s)), structure for how applicant’s performance metric for the communication initiator, based at least in part on a confidence level and a value of a transaction is determined to achieve the recited result in the aforementioned limitation which are essential for this limitation. Applicant’s failure to disclose any meaningful processes with the above recited subject matter raises questions as to whether applicant truly had possession of these features at the time of filing. Therefore, the Examiner has determined the specification merely states a wish for the functions and desired result recited in the aforementioned limitation, and does not demonstrate how the applicant actually intended to achieve the claimed functions and result. Further, the specification does not describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail such that an ordinarily skilled artisan would understand that the inventor had made the invention at the time of filing. Thus, the Examiner rejects claims 1 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) for a lack of written description support. The respective dependent claims do not remedy this flaw; therefore, they are also rejected as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION. —The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-7 and 16-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 16 recite, “determining…a performance metric for the communication initiator, based at least in part on the confidence level and a value of the transaction”. Examiner is unable to determine the metes and bounds of this limitation since applicant fails to distinctly describe the steps for computing or determining a performance metric, or a confidence level. Further applicant fails to distinctly describe how a value for a transaction value is calculated or measured, and used/applied in determining a performance metric for the communication initiator. Applicant’s disclosure only generically teaches at ¶31: “Additional performance metrics that may be calculated using the techniques described herein include operationally related metrics that may apply to service transactions, claim filings, changing a vehicle on a policy, etc. For example, a time to purchase metric corresponds to how long it takes a potential customer to purchase the product from starting the initial quote until a payment was made”; ¶51: “confidence levels may or may not be static. For example, different (e.g., higher or lower) confidence levels may be applied for linking communication sessions, depending on the performance metric(s) for which the linking is being used. For example, when calculating an attribution performance pay amount for a vendor of an online advertisement, a higher confidence level for linking communication sessions may be applied to improve the accuracy and confidence associated with the metric”; ¶69: “The linking and corresponding confidence levels can be used to analyze the value and performance of individual communication initiators in terms of measurable results”. However, it does not adequately describe how the performance metric is determined based on a confidence level and value of a transaction; nor does it provide the requisite criteria for how a value of a transaction or confidence level is determined and used to determine a performance metric. The claim defines the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the disclosure fails to sufficiently identify how the function is performed or the result is achieved. Although the specification describes a performance metric associated with the communication initiator based in part on a confidence level, there is no degree or criteria for how the confidence level is determined (i.e. numeric value?); nor does the disclosure provide how or what “a value” of a transaction actually means, or determined and used for determining a performance metric for the communication initiator. The claim limitations are indefinite since the boundaries of the subject matter are not clearly delineated and the scope as to how the performance metric for the communication initiator is to be determined is unclear. For purposes of prior art, Examiner interprets the confidence level and “a value of a transaction” each to be a numeric value. The respective dependent claims do not remedy this flaw; therefore, they are also rejected. Appropriate clarification is requested.
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.
Claims 1-7 and 16-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claims 1-7 and 21-23 are directed to a process (method), claims 16-20 and 24-26 are directed to a non-transitory computer readable storage medium. Thus, each of the claims fall within one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A-Prong 1: Claim 1 recites in part, “receiving, by a computer system, a first record of a first user-initiated communication session performed via a first communication channel, the first record including first user identification data; determining, by the computer system, and based at least in part on the first record, a communication initiator at least in part causing the first user-initiated communication session; wherein the communication initiator comprises at least one of: an embedded link within a web page or email; an embedded phone number within an advertisement; or a search-engine based advertisement; receiving, by the computer system, a second record of a second user-initiated communication session performed via a second communication channel different from the first communication channel, the second record including second user identification data; determining, by the computer system, and based at least in part on the second record, a transaction performed during the second user-initiated communication record; determining, by the computer system, that the first user-initiated communication session and the second user-initiated communication session are interactions within a related group of interactions; determining, by the computer system, a confidence level for a causal association between the communication initiator and the transaction, based at least in part on determining one or more related data fields between the first record and the second record; determining by the computer system a performance metric for the communication initiator, based at least in part on the confidence level and a value of the transaction; and initiating and performing a marketing effort including the communication initiator based at least in part on the performance metric determined for the communication initiator”
The underlined limitations above demonstrate independent claim 1 is directed toward the abstract idea for receiving a first communication record of a first user, determining communication initiator, receiving a second record of a second user, determining a transaction performed during second user communication session, determining the communication session are interactions, determining a confidence level for a causal association between the communication initiator and the transaction, determining a performance metric for the communication initiator, initiating and performing a marketing effort in a computing environment. Applicant’s specification emphasizes techniques for determining associations between different interactive communication sessions performed between users and an organization, over multiple different communication channels. It further discusses receiving and comparing user data from communication records captured via different communication channel systems, determining confidence levels for associations between different communication sessions; and associating communication initiators and/or communication results with individual communication sessions. (¶6). The specification generally teaches that a computer system comprises one or more processors, and one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform various operations (¶8). Applicant’s disclosure discusses a computing environment including a multi- channel analysis system configured to analyze communication records from multiple communication systems, and that the various operations performed by the computing systems described herein (e.g., multi-channel analysis system 202, etc.) may be implemented within a datacenter including one or more servers or devices similar to server 500. For instance, some or all of the operations described herein may be performed by one or more server 500 operating in a networked (e.g., client-server or cloud-based) arrangement. (¶10, ¶64). The specification also discloses that the computer server is capable of executing program components for implementing the various functionality and that similar or identical computer architectures may be implemented via workstations, desktop or laptop computers, tablet computers, network appliances, mobile devices (e.g., smartphones, etc.) or other computing device, and/or virtual machines or cloud-based computing solutions, any or all of which may execute any combination of the software components (¶55).
Representative Claim 1 is considered an abstract idea because the underlined limitations pertains to (i) managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)) “receiving …a first record of a first user-initiated communication session …including first user identification data; determining,… based at least in part on the first record, a communication initiator; receiving… a second record of a second user-initiated communication session …different from the first communication channel, the second record including second user identification data; determining …that the first user-initiated communication session and the second user-initiated communication session are interactions within a related group of interactions; and (ii) commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations) whereby “determining, …a transaction performed during the second user-initiated communication record; determining, …a confidence level for a causal association between the communication initiator and the transaction; determining …a performance metric for the communication initiator …and initiating and performing a marketing effort including the communication initiator based at least in part on the performance metric determined for the communication initiator” are directed to the certain methods of organizing human activity groupings of abstract ideas. Hence, the claim recites an abstract idea--see MPEP 2106.04(II).
Step 2A-Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements “computer system”, “first communication channel”, “second communication channel”, [claim 1], “non-transitory computer-readable media”, “processor” [claim 16] merely provide an abstract-idea based solution using data gathering and analysis; and merely provide instructions for organizing human interactions, and implement the abstract idea recited above utilizing the “computer system”, “first communication channel”, “second communication channel”, [claim 1], “non-transitory computer-readable media”, “processor” [claim 16], as tools to perform the abstract idea, and generally links the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05 (f-h). These elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea—see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Independent claim 1 fails to operate the recited “computer system”, “first communication channel”, “second communication channel”, [claim 1], “non-transitory computer-readable media”, “processor” [claim 16] (which are merely standard computer technology and hardware/software components- (Applicant’s disclosure discusses a computing environment including a multi- channel analysis system configured to analyze communication records from multiple communication systems, and that the various operations performed by the computing systems described herein (e.g., multi-channel analysis system 202, etc.) may be implemented within a datacenter including one or more servers or devices similar to server 500. For instance, some or all of the operations described herein may be performed by one or more server 500 operating in a networked (e.g., client-server or cloud-based) arrangement (¶10, ¶64)); and ¶55: “the computer server is capable of executing program components for implementing the various functionality and that similar or identical computer architectures may be implemented via workstations, desktop or laptop computers, tablet computers, network appliances, mobile devices (e.g., smartphones, etc.) or other computing device, and/or virtual machines or cloud-based computing solutions, any or all of which may execute any combination of the software components), in any exceptional manner, and there is no evidence in the disclosure to suggest achieving an actual improvement in the computer functionality itself, or improvement in any specific computer technology other than utilizing ordinary computational tools to automate and perform the abstract idea for receiving a first communication record of a first user, determining communication initiator, receiving a second record of a second user, determining a transaction performed during second user communication session, determining the communication session are interactions, determining a confidence level for a causal association between the communication initiator and the transaction, determining a performance metric for the communication initiator, initiating and performing a marketing effort in a computing environment —see MPEP 2106.05(a). Accordingly, applicant has not shown an improvement or practical application under the guidance of MPEP section 2106.04(d) or 2106.05(a). Applicant’s limitations as recited above do nothing more than supplement the abstract using generic computer and networking components performing generic computer functions (receiving, determining, initiating and performing) such that it amounts to no more than mere instruction to apply the exception using a generic computer component-see MPEP 2106.05(f) and linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(h). Independent claim 16 recites substantially similar limitations as independent claim 1, therefore it is also directed to the same abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2-7 and 17-26 fail to cure the deficiencies of the above noted independent claim from which they depend and are therefore rejected under the same grounds. The dependent claims further recite the abstract idea without imposing any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Dependent claims 2-7 and 17-26, recite additional data gathering and processing steps (updating, determining, receiving, routing). For example dependent claims 2, 17, 21, 23, 24, 26 recite in part, “wherein determining the performance metric”; claims 3, 4 recite in part, “wherein determining the confidence level”, claims 5 and 20 recite in part, “wherein the first user identification data includes”; claim 6 recites in part, “the first communication record is received from”; claim 7 recites in part, “routing the second user-initiated communication session …”; claims 18 and 19 recite in part, “wherein determining the confidence level”, claims 22 and 25 recite in part, “determining a third interaction”; claim 24 recites in part, “where and which are still directed toward the abstract idea identified previously and are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer or with computing components.
The additional elements in the dependent claims, “telephony system” [claim 6] only serves to further limit the abstract idea utilizing “computer system”, “first communication channel”, “second communication channel”, [claim 1], “non-transitory computer-readable media”, “processor” [claim 16] as a tool, and to generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment; hence are nonetheless directed towards fundamentally the same abstract idea as their respective independent claim since they fail to impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea-see applicant’s disclosure, ¶35: “each communication systems 216 may implement functionality of providing interactive sessions between customers and representatives over a distinct communication channel. In this example, the organization supports a first voice communication system (or telephony system) 216A, a second messaging/chat communication system 216B, a third video communication system 216C, a fourth social media-based communication system 216D, and a fifth in-store communication system 216E configured to monitor and record in-store user interactions. An organization may use any combination of external or internal communication systems and/or services as communication systems 216.” Therefore, the abstract idea fails to integrate into any practical application. Thus, under Step 2A-Prong Two the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as discussed above, with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements “computer system”, “first communication channel”, “second communication channel”, [claim 1], “non-transitory computer-readable media”, “processor” [claim 16], amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component which does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application nor provide an inventive concept (significantly more than the abstract idea).
Further, giving the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim limitations in light of the specification, applicant’s “telephony system” amounts to no more than applying the judicial exception using generic computing components for carrying out the method/system steps linking the use of the judicial exception to a computing environment. In this case, “telephony system” is generically used to further process /transmit/communicate received data utilizing rules logic and fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea- and amounts to no more than applying the judicial exception using generic computing components, and linking the use of the judicial exception to a computing environment. There is no improvement to the “telephony system” which is merely used generically to further transmit/communicate received data via a processor component (computer system). Hence, the 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.
Accordingly, even when considered as a whole, the claims do not transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention since the claim limitations do not amount to a practical application or significantly more than an abstract idea for receiving a first communication record of a first user, determining communication initiator, receiving a second record of a second user, determining a transaction performed during second user communication session, determining the communication session are interactions, determining a confidence level for a causal association between the communication initiator and the transaction, determining a performance metric for the communication initiator, initiating and performing a marketing effort in a computing environment. Hence, claims 1-7 and 16-26 are directed to non-statutory subject matter and are rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 USC 101. See 2019 PEG and MPEP 2106.
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 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, 3-7, 16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rao et al, US Patent No US 9,736,194 B1, in view of Smullen et al., US Patent Application Publication No US 2018/032120 A1.
With respect to claims 1 and 16,
Rao discloses,
receiving, by a computer system, a first record of a first user-initiated communication session performed via a first communication channel, the first record including first user identification data (Abstract: “techniques for establishing communication between multiple devices”; col 4, lines 40-59: “The request 110 may include one or more identifiers associated with the first communication device 102(1)… the request 110 may also include configuration data indicative of one or more configurations of the first communication device 102(1). For example, the first communication device 102(1) may provide a SDP or similar configuration information to the load balancing device 104 indicative of protocols, codecs, channels, ports, firewalls, and so forth, associated with the first communication device 102(1). In other implementations, configuration data associated with the first communication device 102(1) may be determined by the load balancing device 104 or stored in a data store associated with the load balancing device 104”)
determining, by the computer system, and based at least in part on the first record, a communication initiator at least in part causing the first user-initiated communication session (col 5, lines 42-51: “the load balancing device 104 may pass information such as a picture of the user, “geolocation of the communication device 102, an identification of users or communication devices 102 participating in a communication, a type of connection, and so forth, to the web server 106. In some implementations, the portions of the request 110 that correspond to the parameter data 116 may also be provided to the web server 106 to indicate a status of a connection, the communication devices 102 associated with the connection, and so forth.
receiving, by the computer system, a second record of a second user-initiated communication session performed via a second communication channel different from the first communication channel, the second record including second user identification data (col 4, lines 44-48: “a request 110 may be provided by one or more of the second communication device 102(2) or the third communication device 102(3). The request 110 may include one or more identifiers associated with the first communication device 102(1) and one or more identifiers associated with the other communication devices 102 that are the target of the communication initiated by the first communication device 102(1). For example, the request 110 may include a network identifier (e.g., an alphanumeric string) associated with the second communication device 102(2) and a telephone number associated with the third communication device 102(3)”; col 6, lines 6-11: “the second communication device 102(2) may be associated with the load balancing device 104 and the web server 106 by a HTTP or websocket connection. The connection module 118 may therefore establish a HTTP or websocket connection between the load balancing device 104 and the second communication device 102(2)”; col 7 lines 51-56: “Based at least partially on the configurations associated with the second communication device 102(2) the transcoding module 124 may transcode the first communication data 126(1) to form second communication data 126(2) associated with a second protocol”)
determining, by the computer system, a performance metric for the communication initiator, based at least in part on the confidence level and a value of the transaction (col 8, lines 37-46: “Status data 132 may include historic or aggregated data regarding previous communications. In some implementations, the status data 132 may include metric information regarding one or more communications. For example, metric information may include a count of attempted communications that were successful, a count of failed communications, and so forth. Metric information may also include a total count of communications over a time period, a current number of active communications, a state of one or more communications, and so forth”)
Rao discloses all of the above limitations, Rao does not distinctly disclose the following limitations, but Smullen however as shown discloses,
wherein the communication initiator comprises at least one of: an embedded link within a web page or email; an embedded phone number within an advertisement; or a search-engine based advertisement (Fig 2, ¶49: “Documents, media, and application state are preferably viewed as addressable resources, combined with data provide to the resource via request parameter, such as HTTP GET or HTTP POST parameters, or request body contents. Such request data can include an updated representation of the call resource, or other call state data generated as a result of call router operation, such as digits pressed on the keypad or audio recordings generated”; ¶50-¶56: “The memory 192 of the channel based communication and engagement platform 200 stores: [0051] an operating system 202 (e.g., iOS, DARWIN, RTXC, LINUX, UNIX, OS X, WINDOWS, or an embedded operating system such as VxWorks) that includes procedures for handling various basic system services; [0052] a communications module 204-S for supporting bidirectional secure communications between the channel based communication and engagement platform 200, enterprise data sources 102 and remote user devices 104; [0053] one or more communication and engagement objects (CBCEO) 206—software objects configured to include enterprises data source descriptions 208 of the enterprises data sources 102 that are available to users of the remote user devices 104, including for each respective enterprise data source the associated primary communication channel 210, as well as an optional keyword 207 associated with the communication and engagement object; [0054] an active user data store 214 that tracks the current active users 216 of the channel based communication and engagement system, including for each such user a unique identifier 218, and their active primary communication channels 220, and in some embodiments, the conversation identifiers of the conversations of the active users; [0055] a user profile database 224 that stores a user profile for each user; and [0056] an optional electronic file cabinet 226 which stores attachments sent in to users”; ¶59: “a CBCEO can be integrated with other CBCEOs to form an advertising unit of a data source or can standalone as a single advertisement of the data source”; Fig 5B, ¶104: “Upon retrieval of the one or more CBCEO 206, the one or more CBCEO are integrated into an advertising unit of a data source. As previously described, data sources are networked locations that maintain a collection or compilation of one or more webpages. Advertising units are graphical advertising elements configured in a variety of advertising formats. Typically, a webpage has an advertising unit that is configured to manage one or more advertisements for the webpage. Advertisements include but are not limited to static images, GIFs, video(s), audio, text, etc. For instance, an advertising unit of a webpage typically comprises locations, resolutions, aspect ratios, sizes, types of advertisements, number of advertisements on the webpage, as well as formats of the advertisements (e.g., a mobile format, an online format, an offline format, etc”; ¶107: “selection of a first enterprise data source in the plurality of enterprise data sources is received. This selection is through the one or more channel-based communication and engagement objects 206 of the rendered advertising unit from the user device 104. For instance, in some embodiments, the user clicks on or touches the rendered advertising unit to select it. In some embodiments, the selection is by way of a universal resource locator (URL) associated with the first enterprise data source. Similarly, in other embodiments the selection is by way of an embedded link in the advertising unit”))
determining, by the computer system, and based at least in part on the second record, a transaction performed during the second user-initiated communication session (¶88: “FIGS. 1 through 4 exemplarily illustrate a business to consumer architecture of a channel based bidirectional communication and transaction system (channel based communication and engagement system “CBCES” 48) for facilitating channel based communication and engagement with consumers through advertising units”; ¶92: “the profile details the primary communication channels 210 to which the user has subscribed or is actively participating in. In some embodiments, the user profile of a user additionally stores the identifier of each conversation in each primary communication channel that the user is presently participating in”; ¶93: “Responsive to the search query, one or more channel-based communication and engagement objects (CBCEO) 206 are retrieved. Channel based communication and engagement objects are software objects (e.g., data structures, variables, functions, and/or methods) that comprise primary communication channels 210. Each CBCEO 206 corresponds to a plurality of enterprise data source 102. In some embodiments, each enterprise data source includes one or more identifiers (e.g., names of the enterprise data source, contact numbers of the enterprise data source, etc.)”; ¶113: “The second conversation is between a second remote user device 104-2 associated with a second user and the first enterprise data source 102-1. The second plurality of messages comprises a second message posted by the first enterprise data source 102-1. The second message is associated with a second application programming interface token which identifies the second user associated with the second remote user device”)
determining, by the computer system, that the first user-initiated communication session and the second user-initiated communication session are interactions within a related group of interactions (Fig 5A, ¶96: “a keyword 207 is associated with each CBCEO (e.g., CBCEO 206-2 is associated with the keyword “fashion”). Typically, the keyword 207 is utilized to group related enterprise data sources. For example, when a keyword is “dish-network”, one or more CBCEO's corresponding to a variety of enterprise data sources 208 that provide services related to “dish-network” are retrieved. However, in some embodiments the keyword 207 is utilized to group related CBCEOs 206”; ¶102: “the retrieving the one or more channel-based communication and engagement objects 206 comprises generating a list, or catalog, of enterprise data sources 102” ¶103: “in some embodiments the channel-based communication and engagement system is associated with a plurality of keywords 207 of the enterprise data source 102. For example, in some embodiments the CBCES is associated with keywords “JAVA” and “Script” so that only enterprise data sources 102 related to JAVA Script are retrieved while enterprise data sources related to coffee products are not retrieved”)
determining, by the computer system, a confidence level for a causal association between the communication initiator and the transaction based at least in part on determining one or more related data fields between the first record and the second record (¶46: “FIGS. 1 through 4 collectively illustrate the topology of the system in accordance with the present disclosure. In the topology, there is a channel-based communication and engagement platform 200 (FIGS. 1 and 2), enterprise data sources 102 that provide customer services and products to users through the channel based communication and engagement platform 200 (FIGS. 1 and 3), and remote user devices 104 associated with users that consume such customer services and products (FIGS. 1 and 4)”) (¶58: Enterprise data sources refer to entities that engage with users and provide services and/or products to the users. These entities include, but are not limited to, small and large enterprises, a store (e.g., a local business), a chain of stores (e.g., a franchise), a government institution (e.g., a public transportation service), a company, a corporation, an advertising firm, a restaurant, a healthcare organization or healthcare provider, a social organization or social club, etc.”; ¶102: Referring to block 516, in some embodiments the retrieving the one or more channel based communication and engagement objects 206 comprises generating a list, or catalog, of enterprise data sources 102. The list comprises each enterprise data source 102 and corresponding primary communication channel 210 of the enterprise data sources in the plurality of enterprise data sources associated with the retrieved channel-based communication and engagement objects 206. In some embodiments, the channel-based communication and engagement objects 206 are selected without human intervention from the list responsive to the search query. For instance, when the list is compiled, a determination is made as to the most relevant CBCEOs 206 contained in the list, and these relevant CBCEO's are automatically selected by the CBCES”; ¶103: “in some embodiments the channel-based communication and engagement system is associated with a plurality of keywords 207 of the enterprise data source 102. For example, in some embodiments the CBCES is associated with keywords “JAVA” and “Script” so that only enterprise data sources 102 related to JAVA Script are retrieved while enterprise data sources related to coffee products are not retrieved”; ¶105: “The standard interactive advertising bureau advertising unit has defined parameters are types (e.g., the ad unit can be either HTML 5, JPEG, PNG, or GIF file types) that creates uniform ad units across a variety of platforms and devices”)
Applicant’s disclosure generally teaches, ¶7: “the method includes determining, by the computer system, a confidence level for an association between the first communication record and the second communication record, based at least in part on the first user identification data and the second user identification data”; ¶51: “different (e.g., higher or lower) confidence levels may be applied for linking communication sessions, depending on the performance metric(s) for which the linking is being used”) Giving the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim limitation in light of the disclosure, Examiner interprets the most relevant CBCEOs retrieved in the list (of the enterprise data sources in the plurality of enterprise data sources) as taught by Smullen as teaching applicants confidence level.
initiating and performing a marketing effort including the communication initiator based at least in part on the performance metric determined for the communication initiator (Fig 5A-Fig 5C, ¶104-¶107; ¶104: “Upon retrieval of the one or more CBCEO 206, the one or more CBCEO are integrated into an advertising unit of a data source”; ¶106: “Block 524. The advertising unit, which comprises the integrated CBCEO 206, is rendered on a display page. A display page refers to a webpage that is in communication to the World Wide Web. A common display page format includes but is not limited to HTML. In some embodiments, the display page is a webpage rendered by the data source to a browser of the user device 104. Accordingly, the rendered advertising unit is displayed to the user device 104”)
Rao discloses techniques for establishing communication between multiple devices, and responsive to a request received from a first device, connection data associated with one or more other devices may be accessed to determine whether the other devices may be accessed via a HTTP connection or a SIP connection. Smullen teaches a channel-based communication and engagement platform and enterprise data sources that provide customer services and products to users and remote user device associated with users that consume the customer services and products. Smullen further generating a list, or catalog, of enterprise data sources and corresponding primary communication channel associated with the retrieved channel-based communication and engagement objects whereby a determination is made as to the most relevant CBCEOs contained in the list
Rao and Smullen are directed to the same field of endeavor since they are related to facilitating electronic communication between multiple devices in a computing environment. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the techniques for establishing communication between multiple devices of Rao and the channel-based communication and engagement platform as taught by Smullen since it allows for determining most relevant channel-based communication and engagement objects (CBCEO), and the integration of CBCEO into an advertising unit to allow the primary communication channels of the CBCEOs to be distributed broadly across a variety of platforms and networks (Fig 1, Fig 2, Fig 5A-Fig 5C, Fig 9, ¶58, ¶99-¶104-¶107, ¶111, ¶112, )
With respect to claims 3 and 18,
Rao and Smullen disclose all of the above limitations, Rao further discloses,
wherein determining the confidence level for the causal association between the communication initiator and the transaction comprises: determining a time difference between a first time associated with the first user-initiated communication session and a second time associated with the second user-initiated communication session (col 8, lines43-47: “Metric information may also include a total count of communications over a time period, a current number of active communications, a state of one or more communications, and so forth”; claim 1: “establish one or more of a Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) connection or a Real-time Transport Protocol (RTP) connection with the telephone network based at least partially on the lack of correspondence between the identifier associated with the second device and the connection data”)
With respect to claims 4 and 19,
Rao and Smullen disclose all of the above limitations Rao further discloses,
wherein determining the confidence level for the causal association between the communication initiator and the transaction comprises: determining a physical location associated with at least one of the first user-initiated communication session or the second user-initiated communication session and determining a first user and a second user associated with the physical location (col 5, lines 42-51: “the load balancing device 104 may pass information such as a picture of the user, “geolocation of the communication device 102, an identification of users or communication devices 102 participating in a communication, a type of connection, and so forth, to the web server 106. In some implementations, the portions of the request 110 that correspond to the parameter data 116 may also be provided to the web server 106 to indicate a status of a connection, the communication devices 102 associated with the connection, and so forth.
With respect to claims 5 and 20,
Rao and Smullen disclose all of the above limitations, Rao further discloses,
wherein: the first user identification data includes a first user identifier and a first device identifier associated with the first user-initiated communication session; the second user identification data includes a second user identifier and a second device identifier associated with the second user-initiated communication session; (col 2, lines 40-51: “The request may include an identifier associated with the other device. The load balancing device may access connection data that includes identifiers of devices associated with the web server. For example, the connection data may include a state table listing devices that currently have an open HTTP or websocket connection with the web server. If correspondence between the identifier of the target device and the connection data is determined, the load balancing device may establish a connection with the second device via the web server (e.g., using a HTTP or websocket connection to access a browser or similar interface of the target device”; col 5, lines 35-47: “the request 110 may include additional data other than portions corresponding to the parameter data 116. For example, the request 110 may include text, scripts, graphical elements, and so forth, that are associated with the connection but are not used to define parameters of the connection. Portions of the request 110 that do not correspond to the parameter data 116 may be provided to the web server 106. For example, the load balancing device 104 may pass information such as a picture of the user, geolocation of the communication device 102, an identification of users or communication devices 102 participating in a communication, a type of connection, and so forth, to the web server 106”)
determining the confidence level for the causal association between the communication initiator and the transaction comprises: determining a difference between the first user identifier and the second user identifier; and determining a difference between the first device identifier and the second device identifier (col 2, lines 10-26: “Communications between disparate devices may occur using different protocols, different configurations (e.g., firewall settings, open ports, codecs used), and different types of connections. For example, a browser-based application may communicate with a web server using a Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) or websocket connection. A Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) telephone may communicate using a Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) connection over a telephone network. Communication between a first device associated with a web server and a second device associated with a telephone network may be facilitated using a web server or similar intermediate device”; col 5, lines 35-47: “the request 110 may include additional data other than portions corresponding to the parameter data 116. For example, the request 110 may include text, scripts, graphical elements, and so forth, that are associated with the connection but are not used to define parameters of the connection. Portions of the request 110 that do not correspond to the parameter data 116 may be provided to the web server 106. For example, the load balancing device 104 may pass information such as a picture of the user, geolocation of the communication device 102, an identification of users or communication devices 102 participating in a communication, a type of connection, and so forth, to the web server 106”; line 62- col 6, line 11: “When correspondence is determined between the connection data 120 and an identifier of a communication device 102 determined from the request 110, this determination may indicate that the communication device 102 may be accessed using a HTTP or websocket connection. When a lack of correspondence between the connection data 120 and an identifier in the request 110 is determined, this determination may indicate that the communication device 102 is not accessible via a HTTP or websocket connection, and that a different type of connection, such as a SIP connection, may be used to access the communication device 102. For example, the second communication device 102(2) may be associated with the load balancing device 104 and the web server 106 by a HTTP or websocket connection. The connection module 118 may therefore establish a HTTP or websocket connection between the load balancing device 104 and the second communication device 102(2)”)
With respect to claim 6,
Rao and Smullen disclose all of the above limitations, Rao further discloses,
wherein: the first record is received from a telephony system and corresponds to a voice communication session; the first user identification data includes a phone number stored by the telephony system; (col 2, lines 10-26: “a computing device executing a browser-based application and a telephone or video conferencing device associated with a Private Branch Exchange (PBX), the Public Switched Telephone Network (PSTN), or another type of network. Communications between disparate devices may occur using different protocols, different configurations (e.g., firewall settings, open ports, codecs used), and different types of connections. For example, a browser-based application may communicate with a web server using a Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) or websocket connection. A Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) telephone may communicate using a Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) connection over a telephone network. Communication between a first device associated with a web server and a second device associated with a telephone network may be facilitated using a web server or similar intermediate device”; col 4, lines 44-59: “the request 110 may include a network identifier (e.g., an alphanumeric string) associated with the second communication device 102(2) and a telephone number associated with the third communication device 102(3). In some implementations, the request 110 may also include configuration data indicative of one or more configurations of the first communication device 102(1). For example, the first communication device 102(1) may provide a SDP or similar configuration information to the load balancing device 104 indicative of protocols, codecs, channels, ports, firewalls, and so forth, associated with the first communication device 102(1). In other implementations, configuration data associated with the first communication device 102(1) may be determined by the load balancing device 104 or stored in a data store associated with the load balancing device 104”)
the second record is received from a web server and corresponds to a web-based session; and the second user identification data includes at least one of an email address and a network address stored by the web server (col 2, lines 10-26: “Communications between disparate devices may occur using different protocols, different configurations (e.g., firewall settings, open ports, codecs used), and different types of connections. For example, a browser-based application may communicate with a web server using a Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) or websocket connection”; col 4, lines 5-11: “A first communication device 102(1) and a second communication device 102(2) may be associated with a web server 106. For example, the first communication device 102(1) and the second communication device 102(2) may communicate with one or more of the load balancing device 104 or the web server 106 via a HTTP or websocket connection”; col 18, lines 51-54: “The destination identifier 206 may include a name or address that identifies the second communication device 102(2) within a network, a telephone number, e-mail address, and so forth”)
With respect to claim 7,
Rao discloses all of the above limitations, Rao does not distinctly disclose the following limitations, but Smullen however as shown discloses,
routing the second user-initiated communication session to a user device, based at least in part on the confidence level for the causal association between the communication initiator and the transaction (Fig 5A-Fig 5C, ¶104-¶107; ¶104: “Upon retrieval of the one or more CBCEO 206, the one or more CBCEO are integrated into an advertising unit of a data source”; ¶106: “Block 524. The advertising unit, which comprises the integrated CBCEO 206, is rendered on a display page. A display page refers to a webpage that is in communication to the World Wide Web. A common display page format includes but is not limited to HTML. In some embodiments, the display page is a webpage rendered by the data source to a browser of the user device 104. Accordingly, the rendered advertising unit is displayed to the user device 104”; ¶112: “the channel based communication and engagement platform 200 offers different levels of security based on a user's security needs”; ¶113: “the first primary communication channel further hosts a second plurality of messages. These second messages are communicated in another (i.e., second) secure bidirectional conversation which is different than the first secure bidirectional conversation. The second conversation is between a second remote user device 104-2 associated with a second user and the first enterprise data source 102-1. The second plurality of messages comprises a second message posted by the first enterprise data source 102-1. The second message is associated with a second application programming interface token which identifies the second user associated with the second remote user device. The first application programming interface token is used to route the first message to the first remote user device within the first primary communication channel. The second application programming interface token is used to route the second message to the second remote user device within the first primary communication channel. ¶121: “a user input specifically triggers the change from automated to non-automated. For example, the user might say “I want to talk with an operator”, and that might result in reclassifying further messages in the conversation such that they are routed to a non-automated agent (e.g., human call center rep). This routing could in principle change back and forth many times during a conversation, between an automated agent (the first human intervention status of the conversation is deemed automated) and a non-automated (human) agent (the first human intervention status of the conversation is deemed non-automated)”; ¶123: “a trained classifier is used to monitor conversations on a primary communication channel 210 for the purpose of changing the status of such conversations from automated to non-automated. For instance, such a trained classifier may parse the messages posted by users for certain keywords 207 such as “operator” or other words or events that have been determined to be associated with a need for human intervention. For instance, the user may have looped through several different nodes of an automated human interface module and may be getting frustrated. Advantageously, in some embodiments, classifiers are trained based on the broad aggregate of user interactions from a plurality of users over time”)
Rao discloses techniques for establishing communication between multiple devices, and responsive to a request received from a first device, connection data associated with one or more other devices may be accessed to determine whether the other devices may be accessed via a HTTP connection or a SIP connection. Smullen teaches a channel-based communication and engagement platform and enterprise data sources that provide customer services and products to users and remote user device associated with users that consume the customer services and products. Smullen further generating a list, or catalog, of enterprise data sources and corresponding primary communication channel associated with the retrieved channel-based communication and engagement objects whereby a determination is made as to the most relevant CBCEOs contained in the list. Smullen also discloses a trained classifier used to monitor conversations on a primary communication channel. Rao and Smullen are directed to the same field of endeavor since they are related to facilitating electronic communication between multiple devices in a computing environment. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the techniques for establishing communication between multiple devices of Rao and the channel-based communication and engagement platform as taught by Smullen since it allows for establishing primary communication channels between enterprise data sources and users and the secure exchange of a plurality of messages (Fig 1, Fig 2, Fig 5, Fig 9, ¶88, ¶91¶112 -¶114, ¶121, ¶123).
Claims 2 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rao, Smullen, in further view of Dill (WO20215013548 A1).
With respect to claims 2 and 17,
Rao and Smullen disclose all of the above limitations, the combination of Rao and Smullen does not distinctly describe the following limitation, but Dill however as shown discloses,
wherein determining the performance metric for the communication initiator comprises at least one of updating the related group of interactions associated with the communication initiator, to include the second user-initiated communication session and updating a set of transactions associated with the communication initiator, to include the transaction (¶29: “token can be used to initiate or manage transaction activity. Tokens can also improve transaction security and increase service transparency. Furthermore, tokenization can reduce merchant and issuer costs by improving data security and reducing or eliminating the need to be PCI-DSS compliant”; ¶46: “the invention can provide an assurance level for a token in a transaction. The token assurance level may indicate a trust level of the token to PAN/consumer binding. In some embodiments, a token assurance level can be determined based on a type of identification and verification process performed and the entity that performed the identity and verification process”; ¶108: “The token requestor interface 208 may be used by the token requestor 204 to interact with the network token system 202. For example, the token requestor 204 may send requests for multiple actions including token issuance, token life-cycle management (e.g., activation, deactivation, account credential update, etc.), and token authentication”; ¶159: “The token life-cycle management module 318 may comprise code, executable by the processor 300 to perform life-cycle operations. Life-cycle operations may include canceling a token, activating or deactivating a token, updating token attributes, renewing token with a new PAN expiration date, etc. In one embodiment, a token requestor entity may provide a token requestor identifier, a token number, a life-cycle operation identifier and one or more token attributes to the network token system 202 to perform the requested life-cycle operation on the given token. The token life-cycle management module 318 may verify the token requestor identifier and the token association based on the token registry database 202A. The token life-cycle management module 318 may perform the requested life-cycle operation on the given token number and update all the corresponding association in the token registry database 202A.”; ¶197: “network token system, payment processing network, and/or an issuer may update a routing table file to include issued, generated, or designated token issuer identifiers and/or token issuer identifier ranges. In some embodiments, the updating entity (e.g., network token system, payment processing network, or issuer) may send the updated information to a third party that manages the token routing table and updates the token routing table file and sends to transaction processing entities… a single routing table file may be updated and sent to registered and/or existing transaction processing entities for routing and processing token (as well as non-token) based transactions”; ¶198: “After updating a routing table file, the routing table file may be distributed or sent to the transaction processing entities (e.g., a merchant computer, an acquirer computer, and/or a payment service provider computer). The routing table file may be sent through any suitable method including a "push" messaging process or a "pull" messaging process. For example, in a push messaging process, a payment processing network or network token system may periodically (e.g., hourly, daily, weekly, etc.) or based on each update to the token routing table (e.g., routing table update based), the payment processing network or network token system may send the updated routing table to registered entities within the transaction system”; ¶199: “the transaction processing eco-system may remain updated and current with new tokens and token issuers that are registered and/or configured with the network token system… updating systems to incorporate token issuer identifiers and easily configure transaction processing systems to process token transactions without requiring individual updating of each device, entity, computer, and/or processor in the transaction processing eco-system”)
Dill discloses systems, methods, and devices for providing a secure, easily scalable, and flexible network token processing system. Rao, Smullen and Dill are directed to the same field of endeavor since they are related to facilitating electronic communication between multiple devices in a computing environment. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the techniques for establishing communication between multiple devices of Rao with the channel-based communication and engagement platform of Smullen
and the system/methods for interoperable network token processing as taught by Dill since it allows for updating/managing token transactions and provides a secure, flexible network token processing system and token life-cycle management (Abstract, ¶29, ¶46, ¶159, ¶197-199).
Claims 21-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rao, Smullen, in further view of Synett et al., Patent Application Publication No US 2016/0328739 A1.
With respect to claims 21 and 24,
Rao and Smullen disclose all of the above limitations Smullen further discloses,
wherein determining the performance metric for the communication initiator comprises: determining a set of attributes associated with the related group of interactions, the set of attributes including a number of interactions in the related group; a time range of the related group; and an end result of the related group (¶16: “the target interaction represents at least on interaction from the group consisting of an impression, a click-through, and a conversion; ¶110: “grouping module 250 may be configured to divide interactions into the groups based on properties quantifying relative quality of the interactions. Optionally, grouping module 250 may be configured to divide interactions into the groups based on types of advertisement channels used by the respective interactions”; ¶58-¶69: “The statistics may include multiple parameters (also “performance metrics”). Exemplary performance metrics may be: [0059] “Impressions”: the number of times the ad has been served to users during a given time period (e.g. a day, an hour, and/or the like); [0060] “Frequency”: the average number of times a user has been exposed to the same ad, calculated as the ratio of total number of impressions to the number of unique impressions (i.e. the number of unique users exposed to that ad). This metric may be very common in social advertising platforms; [0061] “Clicks”: the number of times users clicked (or otherwise interacted with) the ad entity during a given time period (e.g. a day, an hour, and/or the like); [0062] “Cost per click (CPC)”: the average cost of a click (or another interaction with an ad entity) to the advertiser, calculated as the total cost for all clicks divided by the number of clicks; [0063] “Cost per impression”: the average cost of an impression to the advertiser, calculated as the total cost for impressions divided by the number of impressions; [0064] “Click-through rate (CTR)”: the ratio between clicks and impressions of the ad entity, namely—the number of clicks divided by the number of impressions; [0065] “Conversions”: the number of times in which users who clicked (or otherwise interacted with) the ad entity has consecutively accepted an offer made by the advertiser during a given time period (e.g. a day, an hour, and/or the like). For examples, users who purchased an advertised product, users who subscribed to an advertised service, users who downloaded a mobile application, or users who filled in their details in a lead generation form; [0066] “Conversion rate (CR)”: the total number of conversions divided by the total number of clicks; [0067] “Return on investment (ROI)” or “Return on advertising spending (ROAS)”: the ratio between the amount of revenue generated as a result of online advertising, and the amount of investment in those online advertising efforts. Namely—revenue divided by expenses; [0068] “Revenue per click”: the average amount of revenue generated to the advertiser per click (or another interaction with an ad entity), calculated by dividing total revenue by total clicks; [0069] “Revenue per impression”: the average amount of revenue generated to the advertiser per impression of the ad entity, calculated by dividing total revenue by total impressions”)
Synett teaches a method/system for tracking network interactions resulting in an outcome from user interaction records, and interaction sequences whereby where each interaction value is computed using rule(s), respective property values, and the total value. Rao, Smullen and Synett are directed to the same field of endeavor since they are related to facilitating electronic communication between multiple devices in a computing environment. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the techniques for establishing communication between multiple devices of Rao with the channel-based communication and engagement platform of Smullen and the method/system for tracking network interactions resulting in an outcome as taught by Synett since it allows for identifying interactions, specific performance metrics and various statistics of a specific of an advertisement channel, which may be more effective for a desired outcome (¶16, ¶58-¶69, ¶110).
With respect to claims 22 and 25,
Rao, Smullen and Synett disclose all of the above limitations Smullen further discloses,
determining a third interaction within the related group of interactions, wherein determining the third interaction comprises determining, based at least on the attributes associated with the related group of interactions, at least one of: a communication channel type for the third interaction; or a third user identification data for the third interaction; and initiating, by the computer system, the third interaction (Fig 5A, ¶92: “the profile details the primary communication channels 210 to which the user has subscribed or is actively participating in. In some embodiments, the user profile of a user additionally stores the identifier of each conversation in each primary communication channel that the user is presently participating in”; ¶93: “Responsive to the search query, one or more channel-based communication and engagement objects (CBCEO) 206 are retrieved. Channel based communication and engagement objects are software objects (e.g., data structures, variables, functions, and/or methods) that comprise primary communication channels 210. Each CBCEO 206 corresponds to a plurality of enterprise data source 102. In some embodiments, each enterprise data source includes one or more identifiers (e.g., names of the enterprise data source, contact numbers of the enterprise data source, etc.); ¶96: “a keyword 207 is associated with each CBCEO (e.g., CBCEO 206-2 is associated with the keyword “fashion”). Typically, the keyword 207 is utilized to group related enterprise data sources. For example, when a keyword is “dish-network”, one or more CBCEO's corresponding to a variety of enterprise data sources 208 that provide services related to “dish-network” are retrieved. However, in some embodiments the keyword 207 is utilized to group related CBCEOs 206”; ¶102: “the retrieving the one or more channel-based communication and engagement objects 206 comprises generating a list, or catalog, of enterprise data sources 102” ¶103: “in some embodiments the channel-based communication and engagement system is associated with a plurality of keywords 207 of the enterprise data source 102. For example, in some embodiments the CBCES is associated with keywords “JAVA” and “Script” so that only enterprise data sources 102 related to JAVA Script are retrieved while enterprise data sources related to coffee products are not retrieved”; Fig 5A-Fig 5C, ¶104-¶107; ¶104: “Upon retrieval of the one or more CBCEO 206, the one or more CBCEO are integrated into an advertising unit of a data source”; ¶106: “Block 524. The advertising unit, which comprises the integrated CBCEO 206, is rendered on a display page. A display page refers to a webpage that is in communication to the World Wide Web. A common display page format includes but is not limited to HTML. In some embodiments, the display page is a webpage rendered by the data source to a browser of the user device 104. Accordingly, the rendered advertising unit is displayed to the user device 104”)
Rao, Smullen and Synett are directed to the same field of endeavor since they are related to facilitating electronic communication between multiple devices in a computing environment. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the techniques for establishing communication between multiple devices of Rao with the method/system for tracking network interactions resulting in an outcome of Synett with the channel-based communication and engagement platform as taught by Smullen since it allows for determining most relevant channel-based communication and engagement objects (CBCEO), and the integration of CBCEO into an advertising unit to allow the primary communication channels of the CBCEOs to be distributed broadly across a variety of platforms and networks (Fig 1, Fig 2, Fig 5A-Fig 5C, Fig 9, ¶58, ¶99-¶104-¶107)
With respect to claims 23 and 26,
Rao and Smullen disclose all of the above limitations, the combination of Rao and Smullen does not distinctly describe the following limitations but Synett however as shown discloses,
wherein determining the performance metric for the communication initiator further comprises: determining a cost of the communication initiator; determining a number of communication sessions associated with the communication initiator; and determining a number of transactions associated with the communication initiator (¶41: “ By comparing multiple sequences of historic data for the same outcomes, similar outcomes, inverse outcomes, and the like, the interactions with positive contribution values can be identified. Positive contribution interactions may be used to save network data transfer, simplify the interaction sequence, improve resource allocation efficiency, and/or the like, for a given desired outcome, such as a target interaction… positive contribution values are used to determine the interactions of a specific advertisement channel”; ¶58-69: “The statistics may include multiple parameters (also “performance metrics”). Exemplary performance metrics may be: [0059] “Impressions”: the number of times the ad has been served to users during a given time period (e.g. a day, an hour, and/or the like); [0060] “Frequency”: the average number of times a user has been exposed to the same ad, calculated as the ratio of total number of impressions to the number of unique impressions (i.e. the number of unique users exposed to that ad). This metric may be very common in social advertising platforms; [0061] “Clicks”: the number of times users clicked (or otherwise interacted with) the ad entity during a given time period (e.g. a day, an hour, and/or the like); [0062] “Cost per click (CPC)”: the average cost of a click (or another interaction with an ad entity) to the advertiser, calculated as the total cost for all clicks divided by the number of clicks; [0063] “Cost per impression”: the average cost of an impression to the advertiser, calculated as the total cost for impressions divided by the number of impressions; [0064] “Click-through rate (CTR)”: the ratio between clicks and impressions of the ad entity, namely—the number of clicks divided by the number of impressions; [0065] “Conversions”: the number of times in which users who clicked (or otherwise interacted with) the ad entity has consecutively accepted an offer made by the advertiser during a given time period (e.g. a day, an hour, and/or the like). For examples, users who purchased an advertised product, users who subscribed to an advertised service, users who downloaded a mobile application, or users who filled in their details in a lead generation form; [0066] “Conversion rate (CR)”: the total number of conversions divided by the total number of clicks; [0067] “Return on investment (ROI)” or “Return on advertising spending (ROAS)”: the ratio between the amount of revenue generated as a result of online advertising, and the amount of investment in those online advertising efforts. Namely—revenue divided by expenses; [0068] “Revenue per click”: the average amount of revenue generated to the advertiser per click (or another interaction with an ad entity), calculated by dividing total revenue by total clicks; [0069] “Revenue per impression”: the average amount of revenue generated to the advertiser per impression of the ad entity, calculated by dividing total revenue by total impressions”)
Synett teaches a method/system for tracking network interactions resulting in an outcome from user interaction records, and interaction sequences whereby where each interaction value is computed using rule(s), respective property values, and the total value. Rao, Smullen and Synett are directed to the same field of endeavor since they are related to facilitating electronic communication between multiple devices in a computing environment. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the techniques for establishing communication between multiple devices of Rao with the channel-based communication and engagement platform of Smullen and the method/system for tracking network interactions resulting in an outcome as taught by Synett since it allows for identifying interactions, specific performance metrics and various statistics of an advertisement channel, which may be more effective for a desired outcome (¶41, ¶58-69).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Khoury et al., US Patent Application Publication No US 2021/0042796 A1, “Systems, Devices, and Methods for Dynamically Generating, Distributing, and Managing Online Communications”, relating to method/system for collecting content and communications; generating and distributing of online, e.g., web, content, autonomously and automatically.
Zarecki et al., US Patent No US 11734731 B1, “Customer Effort Evaluation In a Contact Center System”, relating to a method/ system for track and evaluate dialogue data, telephony data, and/or application usage data associated with communication sessions between customers and representatives.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Kimberly L. Evans whose telephone number is 571.270.3929. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 9:30am-5:00pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Lynda Jasmin can be reached at 571.272.6782.
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://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair <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). Any response to this action should be mailed to: Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450 or faxed to 571-273-8300. Hand delivered responses should be brought to the United States Patent and Trademark Office Customer Service Window: Randolph Building 401 Dulany Street, Alexandria, VA 22314.
/KIMBERLY L EVANS/Examiner, Art Unit 3629
/NATHAN C UBER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3626