DETAILED ACTION
The Amendment filed 2/6/26 has been entered. Claims 1, 6-9 and 11-12 have been amended and no claims have been cancelled.
Claims 1-15 and 17-20 are pending.
Applicant’s amendments/arguments have overcome the previously presented Claim Objections and 35 USC § 112 Claim Rejections.
The Examiner recommends filing a written authorization for Internet communication in response to the present action. Doing so permits the USPTO to communicate with Applicant using Internet email to schedule interviews or discuss other aspects of the application. Without a written authorization in place, the USPTO cannot respond to Internet correspondence received from Applicant. The preferred method of providing authorization is by filing form PTO/SB/439, available at: https://www.uspto.gov/patent/forms/forms. See MPEP § 502.03 for other methods of providing written authorization.
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 .
The New Grounds of Rejection
Applicant’s amendment(s) and argument(s) with respect to claims 1-15 and 17-20 filed on 2/6/26 have been fully considered but they are deemed to be moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Claim Objections
Claims 6, 9 and 11-12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The limitation “…whether the electronic message is intended for a user or a specific application at a second communication entity…” in claim 6, lines 2-3, should be “…whether the electronic message is intended for [[a]] the user or [[a]] the specific application at [[a]] the second communication entity…” (emphasis added) in order to resolve the lack of antecedent basis in the limitations. Appropriate correction is required.
The limitation “…and/or the the electronic message is checked …” in claim 9, lines 4-5, should be “…and/or the [[the]] electronic message is checked…” (emphasis added) in order to resolve the typographical/grammatical error in the limitation. Appropriate correction is required.
Typically abbreviations/acronyms are used after an expansion is provided to the abbreviations/acronyms. However, in claims 11-12, the abbreviations/acronyms “SMTP,” “REST” and “POP” are used before they are expanded. It is suggested to use expansions before using their abbreviations/acronyms. Appropriate correction is required.
Note: For examination purposes, the claims will be interpreted based on the claim language suggested by the Examiner.
Examiner’s Comments
The Examiner provides the following comments regarding the interpretation of the claim limitations:
The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met (See MPEP 2111.04 (II)). In the instant case, since the limitations recited in dependent claims 2-5, 8-9, 11-13 and 19 correspond to the alternative paths shown in Figure 3, the Examiner is not required to address/examine these dependent claims because these dependent claims do not provide any patentable weight to the claimed invention. The examiner suggests choosing only one of these alternative paths and rewriting it in independent form (emphasis added). The examiner further suggests amending claims 2-5, 8-9, 11-13 and 19 to recite each of the remaining alternative paths as being performed on a different electronic message provided that the suggested amendments are fully supported in the Specification.
Claims 15 and 17-18 will be interpreted as dependent on claim 1 because the claim limitations refer to the method of claim 1.
Note: For examination purposes, based on the broadest reasonable interpretation described above, the Examiner will address/examine the limitations of claim 1 and dependent claims (i.e., 6-7, 10, 14-15, 17-18 and 20) that correspond to a single path (i.e., Steps S320, S340, S360 and S380) shown in Figure 3.
Claim 19 recites the limitation “…wherein the providing the electronic message to the backup analyser and avoiding that the electronic message being processed by the specific application ensures that relevant content of the electronic message will not be lost and/or the second communication entity will not crash” in lines 4-7 (emphasis added). The limitation merely recites an intended purpose of “providing the electronic message to the backup analyser and avoiding that the electronic message being processed by the specific application” rather than specifically describing how the “providing the electronic message to the backup analyser and avoiding that the electronic message being processed by the specific application” accomplishes the intended purpose (i.e., ensures that relevant content of the electronic message will not be lost and/or the second communication entity will not crash). Therefore, this limitation does not provide any patentable weight to the claimed invention.
If the Applicant believes, for any reason, that personal communication will expedite prosecution of this application, the Applicant is invited to schedule an interview with the Examiner using the number provided below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-9, 11-13, 15 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Mostafa” (US PGPUB 2017/0264576) in view of “Szeto et al.” (US PGPUB 2016/0285790) (Hereinafter Szeto).
With respect to claim 1, Mostafa teaches a method of providing electronic messages (Abstract), the method being performed by a messaging server (MMS Relay/Server 103; Figs. 1-2, [0044]) and comprising:
receiving an electronic message from a first communication entity (an MMS message is received at an MMS Relay/Server from a client terminal 101; Figs. 1-3, [0045]-[0046], [0049]);
determining whether the electronic message is intended for a user or a specific application at a second communication entity (an MMS message is received at an MMS Relay/Server from a client terminal 101. The MMS message 200 contains content that is destined to an application in the client terminal 101; Figs. 1-3, [0045]-[0046], [0049]);
the electronic message being found to be intended for the specific application at the second communication entity, checking whether the electronic message is processable by the specific application at the second communication entity (an MMS message is received at an MMS Relay/Server from a client terminal 101. The MMS message 200 contains content that is destined to an application in the client terminal 101; Figs. 1-3, [0045]-[0046], [0048]-[0049]);
classifying the electronic message as a message intended for the specific application at the second communication entity by determining that content of the electronic message is processable by the specific application at the second communication entity (MMS Relay/Server receives a message containing content that is destined to an application in a destination device. A message is identified to contain such content by means of the new header fields; Figs. 1-3, [0045]-[0046], [0048]-[0049]. The classification is made when the MMS Relay/Server uses the new header fields to determine that a message contains content destined to the application);
checking that the electronic message is processable by the specific application at the second communication entity, the checking comprising a compatibility check of the electronic message with the specific application for which the electronic message is intended (MMS Relay/Server checks whether the destination device supports the exact application to which the content in the message is destined; Figs. 1-3, [0048], [0051]);
determining the electronic message is processable by the specific application of the second communication entity (MMS Relay/Server checks whether the destination device supports the exact application to which the content in the message is destined; Figs. 1-3, [0048], [0051]); and
providing the electronic message to the second communication entity (if the destination device does support the right application, the message is forwarded to the destination device; Figs. 1-3, [0048], [0052]).
Mostafa does not teach the electronic message being an automated electronic message generated by a software tool at the first communication entity and related to a business transaction.
However, Szeto teaches the electronic message being an automated electronic message generated by a software tool at the first communication entity and related to a business transaction (receiving an automatically-generated message generated automatically by a computing device of a commerce entity; [0082]).
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate using automated transaction-related messages to Mostafa because Mostafa discloses handling messages from a source ([0045]) and Szeto suggests using automated transaction-related messages ([0082]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize the teachings of Szeto in the Mostafa system in order to provide an enhanced user experience.
The limitations of dependent claims 2-5, 8-9, 11-13 and 19 are rejected based on the explanation/analysis provided in the Examiner’s Comments Section above.
With respect to claim 6, Mostafa as modified teaches the method according to claim 1. Mostafa further teaches wherein the determining whether the electronic message is intended for a user or a specific application at a second communication entity comprises analysing header information of the electronic message, the content of the electronic message and/or an attachment of the electronic message; and the classifying, the electronic message as the message intended for the specific application is based on the analyzing (MMS Relay/Server receives a message containing content that is destined to an application in a destination device. A message is identified to contain such content by means of the new header fields; Figs. 1-3, [0045]-[0046], [0048]-[0049]).
With respect to claim 7, Mostafa as modified teaches the method according to claim 1. Mostafa further teaches wherein the checking of the electronic message comprises checking whether the electronic message, the content of the electronic message and/or an attachment of the electronic message complies with processing requirements of the specific application for which the electronic message is intended (MMS Relay/Server checks whether the destination device supports the exact application to which the content in the message is destined; Figs. 1-3, [0048], [0051]).
The limitations of claims 15 and 17-18 are rejected in the analysis of claim 1 above and these claims are rejected on that basis.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mostafa in view of Szeto and further in view of “Kumar et al.” (US PGPUB 2007/0271341) (Hereinafter Kumar).
With respect to claim 10, Mostafa as modified teaches the method according to claim 1. Mostafa does not teach wherein the electronic message is provided as at least one data object comprising content of the electronic message to the specific application.
However, Kumar teaches wherein the electronic message is provided as at least one data object comprising content of the electronic message to the specific application (receiving a protocol based message from a technology application and converting the message into an application specific business object; [0046], [0048]).
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate converting message content into a data object to Mostafa because Mostafa discloses converting message content ([0053]) and Kumar suggests converting message content into a data object ([0046]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize the teachings of Kumar in the Mostafa system in order to allow users to easily access message content.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mostafa in view of Szeto and further in view of “Hsu et al.” (US PGPUB 2004/0078580) (Hereinafter Hsu).
With respect to claim 14, Mostafa as modified teaches the method according to claim 1. Mostafa does not teach wherein the method further comprises subjecting the electronic message to an antivirus security check.
However, Hsu teaches wherein the method further comprises subjecting the electronic message to an antivirus security check (a computer virus scanner in the mail server scans the e-mails to determine if any of the e-mails are infected by computer viruses; [0016]).
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate performing a message antivirus check to Mostafa because Mostafa discloses analyzing message content ([0049]) and Hsu suggests performing a message antivirus check ([0016]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize the teachings of Hsu in the Mostafa system in order to enhance message communication security.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mostafa in view of Szeto and further in view of “Lee et al.” (US PGPUB 2007/0298770) (Hereinafter Lee).
With respect to claim 20, Mostafa as modified teaches the method according to claim 1. Mostafa does not teach further comprising monitoring a sending status of the electronic message to determine that the electronic message is pulled by the second communication entity within a specific period of time and sending a notification message to the second communication entity due to the electronic message not being pulled within the specific period of time.
However, Lee teaches further comprising monitoring a sending status of the electronic message to determine that the electronic message is pulled by the second communication entity within a specific period of time and sending a notification message to the second communication entity due to the electronic message not being pulled within the specific period of time (if a message is not retrieved by a mobile station before a reminder time, a relay server provides a reminder message to the mobile station in order to remind a user to retrieve the corresponding message; [0051]).
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate sending a reminder notification if a message is not retrieved to Mostafa because Mostafa discloses sending message retrievals ([0048]) and Lee suggests a reminder notification if a message is not retrieved ([0051]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize the teachings of Lee in the Mostafa system in order to enhance message delivery success.
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure:
Chen et al. US 2008/0215694. Discloses receiving, processing/converting and sending messages to a recipient.
Stafford et al. US 2014/0040405. Discloses converting data message formats in a message server.
Galicia et al. US 2004/0266411. Discloses converting data message formats in a message server.
Hoelzle et al. US 9,451,427. Discloses converting data message formats in a message server.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Johnny B Aguiar whose telephone number is (571)272-3563. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday 7:30 am - 5:30 pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joon Hwang can be reached on (571) 272-4036. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see 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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOHNNY B AGUIAR/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2447
March 5, 2026