DETAILED ACTION
This communication is responsive to RCE/Amendment filed 12/02/2025.
Claims 1-10 and 12-21 are pending in this application. In the Amendment, claims 1, 5, 7, 10, 12-13, 16 and 18 are amended.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/02/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argued Sarkar does not elaborate on the source of the error and especially not that "the first alphanumeric identifier of the given item comprises at least one typing error by the user when entering the first alphanumeric identifier using a keypad," as currently claimed and does not teach the trigger functionality associated with "performing the following steps, responsive to the at least one typing error in the first alphanumeric identifier of the given item by the user when entering the first alphanumeric identifier using the keypad."
The Examiner respectfully disagrees in response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Gupta teaches the limitation of “performing the following steps, responsive to the at least one typing error in the first alphanumeric identifier of the given item by the user when entering the first alphanumeric identifier using the keypad” (Gupta, col.1, lines 61-66; col.3, lines 13-34; col.5, lines 32-54; col.10, lines 45-52; col.12, lines 24-38; col.18, lines 22-29; spell checker component 102 detects non-word spelling errors; Fig.5, steps 506, 508; col.18, lines 3-8, 22-57, identification of error). While Sarkar is combined with Gupta to further teach an alphanumeric identifier (Sarkar, Fig.1, serial number, customer ID; col.2, lines 40-49, 58-62, customer associated with product; col.3, lines 5-29, 43-67; col.4, line 1-5, customer information databases; col.5, lines 49-60, customer identifier).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-4, 6-7, 9-10, 13, 15-17 and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gupta (US 10,936,813) in view of Sarkar et al. (“Sarkar”, US 10,572,881).
As per claim 1, Gupta teaches a method, comprising:
obtaining at least one message sent by a user (Gupta, col.5, lines 32-54, digital content 104 includes message);
obtaining an identifier of the user, wherein the identifier of the user (i) is automatically captured from the at least one message and (ii) comprises one or more of at least a portion of a telephone number of the user and at least a portion of an email address of the user (Gupta, col.5, lines 44-54, digital content 104 includes emails and therefore an email address);
obtaining a first identifier of a given item associated with the user (Gupta, col.18, lines 3-8, user entered text), wherein the first identifier of the given item comprises at least one typing error by the user when entering the first identifier using a keypad (Gupta, col.1, lines 61-66; col.3, lines 13-34; col.5, lines 32-54; col.10, lines 45-52; col.12, lines 24-38; col.18, lines 22-29; spell checker component 102 detects non-word spelling errors);
performing the following steps, responsive to the at least one typing error in the first identifier of the given item by the user when entering the first identifier using the keypad (Gupta, Fig.5, steps 506, 508; col.18, lines 3-8, 22-57, identification of error):
identifying one or more second identifiers prior to the obtaining the at least one message sent by the user (Gupta, col.3, lines 45-55; col.7, lines 11-36; col.18, lines 58-67; candidate suggestions i.e. second identifiers found in corpus 118);
evaluating a distance of the first identifier of the given item from at least some of the one or more second identifiers of the one or more items (Gupta, col.7, line 11-36; col.12, lines 41-57, col.19, lines 1-9, edit distance determines second identifiers);
selecting a given one of the one or more second identifiers of the one or more items based at least in part on the distance (Gupta, col.9, lines 64-67; col.13, lines 45-49, col.20, lines 21-33 user selects candidate suggestion or automatically replaced); and
initiating a processing of the at least one message using the selected second identifier (Gupta, col.10, lines 45-67; col.18, lines 3-8; real-time spell checking);
wherein the method is performed by at least one processing device comprising a processor coupled to a memory (Gupta, col.5, lines 55-57; Fig.1, memory 110, processor 108).
However, Gupta does not teach an alphanumeric identifier of a given item associated with the user; and identifying second alphanumeric identifiers of the one or more items were associated with the identifier of the user, wherein the one or more second alphanumeric identifiers of the one or more items were associated with the identifier of the user prior to the obtaining the at least one message sent by the user. Sarkar teaches a method of correcting search input errors using distance which includes an alphanumeric identifier of a given item associated with the user (Sarkar, Fig.1, serial number, customer ID; col.2, lines 40-49, 58-62, customer associated with product; col.3, lines 5-29, 43-67; col.4, line 1-5, customer information databases; col.5, lines 49-60, customer identifier); and identifying second alphanumeric identifiers of the one or more items were associated with the identifier of the user (Sarkar, col.4, lines 1-22, col.4, line 59-col.5, line 33; col.6, lines 4-30, similarity functions identify alternative values i.e. second identifiers), wherein the one or more second alphanumeric identifiers of the one or more items were associated with the identifier of the user prior to the obtaining the at least one message sent by the user (Sarkar, col.2, lines 40-49; col.4, lines 34-40, entitlement refers to customer associated with product). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include Sarkar’s teaching with Gupta’s method in order to correct unique identifier typing errors.
As per claim 2, the method of Gupta and Sarkar teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the at least one message comprising the first alphanumeric identifier of the given item is obtained from the user as part of a customer service interaction with the user related to the given item (Sarkar, col.1, lines 13-27; col.2, lines 58-62; col.3, lines 5-18, 43-55, technical support services).
As per claim 3, the method of Gupta and Sarkar teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the at least one message is part of one or more a telephonic communication with the user and a text-based communication with the user (Gupta, col.18, lines 1-2; col.20, lines 39-43, text or audio)
As per claim 4, the method of Gupta and Sarkar teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising requesting confirmation from the user of the selected second alphanumeric identifier (Gupta, col.13, lines 45-49, select the suggestion).
As per claim 6, the method of Gupta and Sarkar teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the given item associated with the user comprises one or more of a product of the user, a service of the user and an account of the user (Sarkar, col.2, lines 40-49, 58-62; col.3, lines 5-18, 43-55; product/service of user).
As per claim 7, the method of Gupta and Sarkar teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the at least one error comprises a transcription error of the first alphanumeric identifier of the given item spoken by the user (Gupta, col.18, lines 1-2; col.20, lines 39-43, speech-to-text).
As per claim 9, the method of Gupta and Sarkar teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the evaluating the distance of the first alphanumeric identifier of the given item from at least some of the one or more second alphanumeric identifiers of the one or more items employs one or more of a Jaro-Winkler distance approximation algorithm and a Levenshtein distance approximation algorithm (Gupta, col.7, line 11-20, Levenshtein distance; Sarkar, col.4, lines 64-67, Levenshtein/Jaro-Winkler distance).
Claims 10 and 16 are similar in scope to claim 1, and are therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 17 is similar in scope to claim 4, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 13 is similar in scope to claim 7, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Claims 15 and 20 are similar in scope to claim 9, and are therefore rejected under similar rationale.
As per claim 21, the method of Gupta and Sarkar teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the evaluating the distance of the first alphanumeric identifier of the given item from at least some of the one or more second alphanumeric identifiers of the one or more items limits the evaluating to only the one or more second alphanumeric identifiers that were associated with the identifier of the user prior to the obtaining the at least one message sent by the user (Gupta, col.7, line 11-36; col.12, lines 41-57, col.19, lines 1-9, edit distance limits second identifiers; Sarkar, col.4, line 59-col.5, line 33; col.6, lines 4-30, similarity functions identify alternative values i.e. second identifiers; col.2, lines 40-49; col.4, lines 34-40, entitlement refers to customer associated with product).
Claims 5, 12 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gupta (US 10,936,813) and Sarkar et al. (“Sarkar”, US 10,572,881) in view of Kuo et al. (“Kuo”, US 2021/0125025).
As per claim 5, the method of Gupta and Sarkar teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the obtained identifier of the user comprises an identifier (Gupta, col.5, lines 44-54; Sarkar, col.5, lines 49-60, customer identifier), however does not explicitly teach wherein the obtained identifier of the user comprises one or more of at least a portion of an identifier from a government-issued identity card of the user and at least a portion of a social security number of the user. Kuo teaches a method of providing assistance based on user identity wherein the obtained identifier of the user comprises a social security number of the user (Kuo, Fig.1, identifier 114; para.32, 39, 54, social security number). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include Kuo’s teaching with the method of Gupta and Sarkar in order to make user context based responses.
Claims 12 and 18 are similar in scope to claim 5, and are therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Claims 8, 14 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gupta (US 10,936,813) and Sarkar et al. (“Sarkar”, US 10,572,881) in view of Faizakof et al. (“Faizakof”, US 2015/0194149).
As per claim 8, the method of Gupta and Sarkar teaches the method of claim 1, however does not teach wherein the processing the at least one message comprises routing one or more of the at least one message based at least in part on the selected second alphanumeric identifier. Faizakof teaches a method of generating suggestions including routing communications based on the user query (Faizakof, para.105-107, 110, routing server routes to appropriate agent based on query). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include Faizakof’s teaching with the method of Gupta and Sarkar in order to efficiently handle search request.
Claims 14 and 19 are similar in scope to claim 8, and are therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Inquiries
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAJEDA MUHEBBULLAH whose telephone number is (571)272-4065. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Tue/Thur-Fri 10am-8pm.
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, William L Bashore can be reached on 571-272-4088. 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.
/S.M./
Sajeda MuhebbullahExaminer, Art Unit 2174
/WILLIAM L BASHORE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2174