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 the Claims
Claims 2, 4-15, 18, and 19 are all the claims pending in the application.
Claims 2, 4-6, 8, 10, 12 and 13 are amended.
Claims 2, 4-15, 18, and 19 are rejected.
The following is a Final Office Action in response to amendments and remarks filed Sep. 24, 2025.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the 101 rejections, the rejections are maintained for the following reasons. First, Applicant asserts the present claims solve the technical problem of communications among users in different organizations being kept in different formats. Examiner respectfully does not find this assertion persuasive because difficulties communicating across different organizations is not a technical problem, it is a business or administrative problem (e.g., coordinating communications is a management problem and not a computer problem).
Second, Applicant asserts various steps cannot be performed in the human mind. Examiner respectfully does not find this assertion persuasive because the steps can be performed by people (e.g., creating a record is an existing business process).
Third, Applicant asserts the claims are eligible citing DDR Holdings and Data Engine Techs. Examiner respectfully does not find this assertion persuasive because Applicant does not explain how or why the cited decisions are analogous to the present claims.
Fourth, Applicant assets the claims reflect meaningful limitations. Examiner respectfully does not find this assertion persuasive because Applicant only generally asserts the claims reflect meaningful limitations.
Fifth, Applicant asserts the claims are eligible because the cited prior art references were found eligible. Examiner respectfully does not find this assertion persuasive because the other patent applications are not binding on the present application.
Regarding the 103 rejections, the rejections are maintained for the following reasons. Applicant asserts De Vries teaches away from a CRM-based system and could not be modified to link records with a CRM platform. Examiner respectfully does not find this assertion persuasive because De Vries explicitly states it can be integrated into a CRM system, ¶¶[0012]-[0013]. Accordingly, Examiner does not find De Vries could not be modified to link records with a CRM platform.
In response to arguments in reference to any depending claims that have not been individually addressed, all rejections made towards these dependent claims are maintained due to a lack of reply by Applicant in regards to distinctly and specifically pointing out the supposed errors in Examiner's prior office action (37 CFR 1.111). Examiner asserts that Applicant only argues that the dependent claims should be allowable because the independent claims are unobvious and patentable over the prior art.
Please note, the rejections under 112(b) are withdrawn in light of the amendments to the claims.
Please further note, the rejections under 112(a) are maintained because the claimed limitations have not been amended and Applicant makes no Remarks regarding the rejection.
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 10-15, 18 and 19 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 pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 10, the claim recites the limitation an “embedded interface for viewing communications over the at least one independent communication channel”. However there is no discussion, throughout the entirety of the specification and drawings, of embedding an interface. As such, Examiner asserts this as evidence that the claim 10 is new matter.
Similarly, claim 11 recites the embedded interface is displayed on a page of the CRM platform. However there is no discussion, throughout the entirety of the specification and drawings, of an embedded interface in a CRM page. As such, Examiner asserts this as evidence that the claim 11 is new matter.
Similarly, claim 18 recites the embedded interface displaying messaging properties. However there is no discussion, throughout the entirety of the specification and drawings, of an embedded Slack interface displaying messaging properties. As such, the Examiner asserts this as evidence that the claim 18 is new matter.
Accordingly, claims 10, 11, and 18 are rejected as failing to comply with the written description requirement. Claims 12-14, 15, 17 and 19 do not resolve these issues and accordingly are rejected due to their dependencies.
Regarding claims 13 and 14, the claims recite the limitation (emphasized) “new communications delivered via the at least one independent communication channel are displayed in the CRM platform by the use of a unique indicia”. However there is no discussion, throughout the entirety of the specification and drawings, of new messages being displayed using a unique indicia, nor is there any discussion of the various types of unique indicia recited in claim 14. As such, Examiner asserts this as evidence that the claims 13 and 14 are new matter.
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 2, 4-15, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Under Step 1 of the patent eligibility analysis, it must first be determined whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). Applying Step 1 to the claims it is determined that: claims 2, 4-15, 18, and 19 are directed to a machine. Therefore, we proceed to Step 2.
Independent Claim 2
Under Step 2A Prong 1 of the patent eligibility analysis, it must be determined whether the claims recite an abstract idea that falls within one or more designated categories or “buckets” of patent ineligible subject matter (i.e., organizing human activity, mathematical concepts, and mental processes) that amount to a judicial exception to patentability.
Claim 2 recites an abstract idea. Specifically, claim 2 recites an abstract idea in the limitations (emphasized):
…computational equipment specifically configured to perform the following steps:
(1) identifying at least one independent communications channel for integration with the CRM platform;
(2) creating at least one record in the CRM platform to associate with the at least one communications channel;
(3) linking the identified at least one independent communications channel to the identified at least one record in the CRM platform;
(4) identifying at least one communication over the at least one independent communications channel for integrating with the at least one record in the CRM platform
(5) dynamically linking the additional communications to the at least one record in the CRM platform and with each of the associated at least one communications channel in real-time;
(6) displaying all communications over the at least one independent communication channel, including the additional communications, within the CRM platform;
at least one database configured to store data from the dynamically linked records;
a Natural Language Processing (NLP) engine coupled to the CRM platform and the at least one independent communications channel and configured to receive, compile and update linked records for each of the associated at least one independent communications channel in real-time based on:
(1) communications occurring on a specific one of the at least one linked communication channel;
(2) natural language identified by the NLP engine and appearing in one or more threads contained within the at least one independent communications channel; or
(3) user-inputted identifiers that identify a specific type of communication topic or thread;
wherein the system is further configured to create new records, through the at least one communication channel, for displaying via the CRM platform;
wherein the foregoing steps are autonomously performed using a computational machine specifically configured to identify natural language appearing in the communications occurring on the at least one independent communication channel.
These limitations recite an abstract idea because these limitations encompass commercial or legal interactions (i.e., marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations). These limitations recite commercial or legal interactions (i.e., marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations) because these limitations encompass organizing and handling customer communications. That is, identifying the communication channel for integration and the record associated with the communication channel encompasses identifying communication channels (e.g., telephone, email, webchat) that should be connected to a customer service center (i.e., that are associated with customer records). Creating and linking the records as claimed encompasses recording information about customer (e.g., creating and storing information on customer contact information). Identifying natural language appearing in the communication encompasses monitoring customer communications, e.g., reviewing communications for complaints and issues. Claims that encompass commercial or legal interactions fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Claim 2 recites an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A Prong 2 of the patent eligibility analysis, it must be determined whether the identified, recited abstract idea includes additional limitations that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The additional elements of claim 2 do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claim 2 recites additional elements in the limitations (emphasized):
…computational equipment specifically configured to perform the following steps:
(1) identifying at least one independent communications channel for integration with the CRM platform;
(2) creating at least one record in the CRM platform to associate with the at least one communications channel;
(3) linking the identified at least one independent communications channel to the identified at least one record in the CRM platform;
(4) identifying at least one communication over the at least one independent communications channel for integrating with the at least one record in the CRM platform;
(5) dynamically linking the additional communications to the at least one record in the CRM platform and with each of the associated at least one communications channel in real-time;
(6) displaying all communications over the at least one independent communication channel, including the additional communications, within the CRM platform;
at least one database configured to store data from the dynamically linked records;
a Natural Language Processing (NLP) engine coupled to the CRM platform and the at least one independent communications channel and configured to receive, compile and update linked records for each of the associated at least one independent communications channel in real-time based on:
(1) communications occurring on a specific one of the at least one linked communication channel;
(2) natural language identified by the NLP engine and appearing in one or more threads contained within the at least one independent communications channel; or
(3) user-inputted identifiers that identify a specific type of communication topic or thread;
wherein the system is further configured to create new records, through the at least one communication channel, for displaying via the CRM platform;
wherein the foregoing steps are autonomously performed using a computational machine specifically configured to identify natural language appearing in the communications occurring on the at least one independent communication channel.
These additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application for the following reasons. First, the additional elements of the computational equipment, the CRM being a platform, performing various steps in real-time, the database storing data from the linked records, and performing various steps automatically, autonomously, and using a computational machine, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception (i.e. as a generic computer and software storing data), see MPEP 2106.05(f).
Second, the additional elements of displaying all within the CRM platform, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements encompass a generic computer function of displaying data (i.e. displaying stored), see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) (noting the use of computers in their ordinary capacity to receive, store, or transmit data does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application).
Third, the additional elements of the Natural Language Processing engine, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the Natural Language Processing engine is claimed sufficiently broadly such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception, see MPEP 2106.05(f).
Fourth, the additional elements of receiving, compiling and updating linked records based on communications, natural language or user-inputted identifiers, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because receiving and compiling the information as claimed is only mere data gathering, see MPEP 2106.05(h).
Fifth, the additional elements of creating new records and displaying through the independent communication channel and the steps of receiving, compiling and updating on the independent communication channel is only a general link to a field of use or technological environment, see MPEP 2106.05(h) (discussing Affinity Labs). That is, although these additional elements do limit the use of the abstract idea, this type of limitation merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (e.g., internet communications or forums) and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add an inventive concept to the claims.
Accordingly, claim 2 is directed to an abstract idea.
Under Step 2B of the patent eligibility analysis, the additional elements are evaluated to determine whether they amount to something “significantly more” than the recited abstract idea (i.e., an innovative concept).
The independent claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements of receiving, compiling and updating linked records based on communications, natural language and user-inputted identifiers, as claimed, essentially only encompasses gathering information on customers, which is only insignificant, extra-solution activity. Further, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception and a general link to a field of use or technological environment. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component, insignificant, extra-solution activity, and a general link to a field of use or technological environment cannot provide an inventive concept. Claim 2 is not patent eligible.
Dependent Claims
The dependent claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application for the following reasons.
Claim 4 recites the additional elements of using an online communication channel. These additional elements are only a general link to a field of use or technological environment, see MPEP 2106.05(h) (discussing Affinity Labs). That is, although these additional elements do limit the use of the abstract idea, this type of limitation merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (e.g., internet communications or forums) and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add an inventive concept to the claims.
Claims 5-7 are directed to the same abstract idea as the independent claim because generating summaries and digests on a predetermined frequency as claimed is a part of handling customer communications (i.e., summarizing or reporting on customer communications).
Claims 8 and 9 are directed to the same abstract idea as the independent claim because assigning owners as claimed is a part of handling customer communications (e.g., assigning employee responsibilities).
Claims 10 and 11 recite the additional elements of an embedded interface in a page layout. These additional elements are only a general link to a field of use or technological environment, see MPEP 2106.05(h) (discussing Affinity Labs). That is, although these additional elements do limit the use of the abstract idea, this type of limitation merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (e.g., internet communications or forums) and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add an inventive concept to the claims.
Claims 12-14 recite the additional elements of providing and autonomously integrating notifications and messages. These additional elements are only a general link to a field of use or technological environment, see MPEP 2106.05(h) (discussing Affinity Labs). That is, although these additional elements do limit the use of the abstract idea, this type of limitation merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (e.g., internet communications or forums) and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add an inventive concept to the claims.
Claim 15 recites the additional elements of an instant messenger. These additional elements are only a general link to a field of use or technological environment, see MPEP 2106.05(h) (discussing Affinity Labs). That is, although these additional elements do limit the use of the abstract idea, this type of limitation merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (e.g., internet communications) and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add an inventive concept to the claims.
Claim 18 recites additional elements of displaying messaging properties, which is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception (i.e. as a generic computer function of displaying received information), see MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claim 19 is directed to the same abstract idea as the independent claim because starting a new workflow is a part of handling customer communications (e.g., starting a new customer service incident).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 2, 4-15, 18, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Vries et al, US Pub. No. 2015/0220862, herein referred to as “De Vries” in view of Atallah et al, US Pub. No. 2022/0029937, herein referred to as “Atallah”, further in view of Walters et al, US Pub. No. 2015/0039600, herein referred to as “Walters”.
Regarding claim 2, De Vries teaches:
computational equipment specifically configured to perform the following steps (computer implemented system, e.g. ¶[0012]):
(1) identifying at least one independent communications channel for integration with the CRM platform (communicates with various social media platforms, e.g., ¶¶[0029], [0030]; see also ¶¶[0008], [0009] discussing customer management software);
(2) creating at least one record in the CRM platform to associate with the identified at least one independent communications channel (stores claimant profiles with information identifying and allowing access to their electronic social media profiles, ¶[0027]);
(3) linking the identified at least one independent communications channel to the
(4) identifying at least one communication over the at least one independent communications channel for integrating with the at least one record in the CRM platform (archives future posts of identified profiles, ¶[0034]);
(6) displaying all communications over the at least one independent communication channel, including the additional communications, within the CRM platform (displays all captured content, ¶[0030]);
at least one database configured to store data from the dynamically linked records (all data is collected and is stored in database, ¶¶[0008], [0009]);
a Natural Language Processing (NLP) engine coupled to the CRM platform and the at least one independent communications channel
(1) communications occurring on a specific one of the at least one linked communication channel (monitors and captures customers posts on social media, ¶¶[0030], [0044]);
(2) natural language identified by the NLP engine and appearing in one or more threads contained within the at least one independent communications channel (natural language queries are run against social media profiles, ¶[0025] to capture and store customers posts on social media, ¶¶[0034], [0044]);
or (3) user-inputted identifiers that identify a specific type of communication topic or thread (adjusters add various identifying information, ¶[0030]);
wherein the system is further configured to create new records (monitors and archives claimants future posts, ¶[0034]);
wherein the foregoing steps
However De Vries does not teach but Atallah does teach:
a Natural Language Processing engine coupled to the at least one database and configured to receive, compile and update linked records in real-time based on (natural language processing, e.g. ¶¶[0081]-[0083]; see also ¶¶[0104]-[0107] discussing storing conversations):
through the at least one communication channel, for displaying via the CRM platform (uses various communication platforms, ¶¶[0100]-[0103]).
Further, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the customer monitoring of De Vries with the natural language processing of Atallah because known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in the same field based on design incentives, see MPEP 2143.I.F. That is, De Vries teaches monitoring and filtering social media data, e.g. Fig. 6. One of ordinary skill would have recognized the social media data would likely be in a natural language and accordingly would have modified De Vries to use natural language process to analyze the natural language information in the social media data.
However the combination of De Vries and Atallah does not teach but Walters does teach:
(5) dynamically linking the additional communications to the at least one record in the CRM platform and with each of the associated at least one communications channel in real-time (links various records of a person, ¶¶[0046]-[0047] and Fig. 3; see also e.g., Abstract and ¶[0029] discussing accessing social media data; and ¶[0028] discussing linking the records if they are believed to be the same person).
Further, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the customer monitoring of De Vries and Atallah with the linking of person records of Walters because known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in the same field based on design incentives, see MPEP 2143.I.F. That is, one of ordinary skill would have recognized system tracking customer activity, as in De Vries, may have multiple records of the same individual and would benefit from combining the records to have all the individual’s data in a single record.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of De Vries, Atallah, and Walters teaches all the limitations of claim 2 and De Vries further teaches:
wherein the at least one communication2 channel is an instant messaging application (access various social media platforms, e.g., ¶¶[0025], [0029]).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of De Vries, Atallah, and Walters teaches all the limitations of claim 2 and De Vries further teaches:
wherein the Natural Language Processing engine is further configured to create a summary of communications occurring over each of at least one independent communication channel (filters customers posts to locate relevant posts, ¶[0044]).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of De Vries, Atallah, and Walters teaches all the limitations of claim 2 and De Vries further teaches:
wherein the Natural Language Processing engine is further configured to create a digest of one or more of the at least one independent communication channels (archives posts, ¶[0044])
on a predetermined frequency (social media monitoring queries are run once per second, hour, etc. ¶[0025]).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of De Vries, Atallah, and Walters teaches all the limitations of claim 6 and does not explicitly teach:
wherein the predetermined frequency is once per day.
Nevertheless, it would have been obvious, at the time of filing, for the frequency to be once a day in light of the combination of De Vries and Atallah because it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of a reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom, see MPEP 2144.01. That is, De Vries teaches a frequency of once per hour or some multiple thereof, ¶[0025]. One skilled in the art would infer that a multiple of once per hour would include once per day.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of De Vries, Atallah, and Walters teaches all the limitations of claim 4 and De Vries further teaches:
a step of assigning ownership of a particular record (adjusters are assigned to claimants, ¶¶[0039], [0043]).
However De Vries does not teach but Atallah does teach:
through the at least one independent communication channel (Slack application, e.g. ¶[0051] and Fig. 3).
Further, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the customer monitoring of De Vries with the messengers of Atallah because known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in the same field based on design incentives, see MPEP 2143.I.F. That is, De Vries teaches assigning adjusters to claimants, ¶¶[0039], [0043]. One of ordinary skill would have recognized employee assignments would need to be communicated and accordingly would have modified De Vries to include a communication functionality, e.g. Slack as taught by Atallah.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of De Vries, Atallah, and Walters teaches all the limitations of claim 8 and De Vries further teaches:
wherein the step of assigning comprises identifying a user and assigning ownership of a record to the user (adjusters are assigned to claimants, ¶¶[0039], [0043]).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of De Vries, Atallah, and Walters teaches all the limitations of claim 4 and De Vries further teaches:
an embedded interface for viewing communications over the at least one independent communications channel (displays social media posts, e.g. ¶¶[0035], [0040]).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of De Vries and Atallah teaches all the limitations of claim 10 and De Vries further teaches:
wherein the embedded interface is displayed on one or more page of the CRM platform (displays social media posts and allows access to social media sites through customer management software, e.g. ¶¶[0035], [0040]).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of De Vries, Atallah, and Walters teaches all the limitations of claim 11 and Atallah further teaches:
wherein a notification issued from the embedded interface provides notification to one or more users connected via the at least one independent communications channel (Slack application provides messaging, e.g. ¶[0051] and Fig. 3).
Further, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the customer monitoring of De Vries with the messengers of Atallah because known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in the same field based on design incentives, see MPEP 2143.I.F. That is, one of ordinary skill would have recognized employees need communications and accordingly would have modified De Vries to include a communication functionality, e.g. Slack as taught by Atallah.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of De Vries, Atallah, and Walters teaches all the limitations of claim 10 and De Vries further teaches:
wherein new communications delivered via the at least one independent communication channel are autonomously integrated and displayed in the CRM platform by the use of a unique indicia (displays real-time hits of social media hits, ¶[0040]; see also ¶[0035] and Fig. 3a discussing the display; and ¶[0034] discussing monitoring and archiving claimants posts).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of De Vries, Atallah, and Walters teaches all the limitations of claim 13 and Atallah further teaches:
wherein the unique indicia is selected from the group consisting of an icon, a textual emphasis, a bold font, an italic font, a punctuation, a chime, a sound, a color, alternating colors, a flashing indicia and a scrolling indicia (messages are displayed in chat with picture, ¶[0152] and Fig. 7B).
Further, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the customer monitoring of De Vries with the messages of Atallah because known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in the same field based on design incentives, see MPEP 2143.I.F. That is, one of ordinary skill would have recognized employees need communications and accordingly would have modified De Vries to include a communication functionality, e.g. the chat as taught by Atallah.
Regarding claim 15, the combination of De Vries, Atallah, and Walters teaches all the limitations of claim 10 and Atallah further teaches:
wherein messaging may be delivered to or from an instant messaging application (uses instant message system, ¶[0048]).
Further, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the customer monitoring of De Vries with the messages of Atallah because known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in the same field based on design incentives, see MPEP 2143.I.F. That is, one of ordinary skill would have recognized employees need communications and accordingly would have modified De Vries to include a communication functionality, e.g. the chat as taught by Atallah.
Regarding claim 18, the combination of De Vries, Atallah, and Walters teaches all the limitations of claim 10 and De Vries further teaches:
wherein the embedded interface is configured to display one or more messaging properties (displays posts and metadata, ¶[0036] and Fig. 3b).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of De Vries and Atallah teaches all the limitations of claim 10 and De Vries further teaches:
wherein the embedded interface is configured to provide the option to start a new workflow (interface to create, review, and modify queries of claimants' social media data, ¶[0027]).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRENDAN S O'SHEA whose telephone number is (571)270-1064. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 10-6.
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, Nathan Uber can be reached at (571) 270-3923. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BRENDAN S O'SHEA/Examiner, Art Unit 3626