DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is responsive to the Application filed on October 24, 2023. Claims 1-20 are pending in the case. Claims 1, 8, and 15 are the independent claims.
This action is non-final.
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 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea (mental steps) without significantly more. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because any additional elements amount to implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding independent claims 1 and 8, and relying on the evaluation flowchart in MPEP 2106:
Step 1 (Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?): Yes. Claim 1 is a system for applying rules to improve nearest neighbor matching (machine). Claim 8 is a method of applying rules to improve nearest neighbor matching (process).
Regarding claim 1:
Step 2a Prong One (Does the claim recite an abstract idea?): Yes.
Claim 1 recites:
generate an embedding space that encodes: a set of first nodes representing the set of users and based on the set of first data structures, a set of second nodes representing the set of entities and based on the set of second data structures, and a set of connections, between the set of first nodes and the set of second nodes, based on the event information (a mental process of determination, including performed using physical aid such as pen and paper, such as a human mentally determining a embedding space as a graph structure including nodes representing users and entities and edges/connections representing events between them);
identify a portion of the set of second nodes, for a selected first node in the set of first nodes, using a condition applied to the set of second nodes (a mental process of determination, such as a human identifying a portion of the nodes for a selected node based on a condition);
calculate weighted distances using a portion of the set of connections that corresponds to the portion of the set of second nodes and the selected first node (a mental process, including a mental process involving a mathematical calculation and including using a physical aid such as pen and paper, of calculating the weighted distances based on the connections and the nodes);
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, these steps may be performed mentally, using mental observation and mental determination, including by a human using a physical aid such as pen and paper, including a human mentally performing observations and mentally performing mathematical calculations, and therefore correspond to the Mental Processes grouping.
Step 2a Prong Two (Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?): No.
Claim 1 additionally recites:
the system comprising: one or more memories; and one or more processors, communicatively coupled to the one or more memories, configured to (mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f));
receive a set of first data structures associated with a set of users (insignificant extra-solution activity as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(g));
receive a set of second data structures associated with a set of entities (insignificant extra-solution activity as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(g));
receive event information associated with the set of users and the set of entities (insignificant extra-solution activity as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(g));
generate at least one communication based on the weighted distances (insignificant extra-solution activity as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(g)); and
transmit the at least one communication to a user device associated with a user, in the set of users, represented by the selected first node (insignificant extra-solution activity as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Therefore, in view of the considerations set forth in MPEP 2106.04(d), 2106.05(a)-(c) and (e)-(h), the additional elements as disclosed above alone or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application as they are mere insignificant extra solution activity, combined with implementing the abstract idea using generic computer components.
Step 2b (Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to siqnificantly more than the judicial exception): No. Relying on the same analysis as Step 2a Prong Two (see MPEP 2106.05.I.A: Limitations that the courts have found not to be enough to qualify as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with a judicial exception include:…Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a limitation indicating that a particular function such as creating and maintaining electronic records is performed by a computer, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225-26, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP 2106.05(f));…Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception...; Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(g);…)), claim 1 does not recite any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As discussed above, Claim 1 recites:
the system comprising: one or more memories; and one or more processors, communicatively coupled to the one or more memories, configured to (mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f));
receive a set of first data structures associated with a set of users (insignificant extra-solution activity as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(g), such as transmitting data over a network, reevaluated to include well understood, routine, conventional activity under MPEP 2106.05(d), such as mere data gathering and outputting);
receive a set of second data structures associated with a set of entities (insignificant extra-solution activity as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(g), such as transmitting data over a network, reevaluated to include well understood, routine, conventional activity under MPEP 2106.05(d), such as mere data gathering and outputting);
receive event information associated with the set of users and the set of entities (insignificant extra-solution activity as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(g), such as transmitting data over a network, reevaluated to include well understood, routine, conventional activity under MPEP 2106.05(d), such as mere data gathering and outputting);
generate at least one communication based on the weighted distances (insignificant extra-solution activity as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(g), such as transmitting data over a network, reevaluated to include well understood, routine, conventional activity under MPEP 2106.05(d), such as mere data gathering and outputting); and
transmit the at least one communication to a user device associated with a user, in the set of users, represented by the selected first node (insignificant extra-solution activity as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(g), such as transmitting data over a network, reevaluated to include well understood, routine, conventional activity under MPEP 2106.05(d), such as mere data gathering and outputting).
The additional elements as discussed above, in combination with the abstract idea, are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as they are well, understood, routine and conventional activity as disclosed in combination with generic computer functions and components used to implement the abstract idea.
Regarding claim 8:
Step 2a Prong One (Does the claim recite an abstract idea?): Yes.
Claim 8 recites:
generating…an embedding space that represents the set of first data structures, the set of second data structures, and the event information (a mental process of determination, including performed using physical aid such as pen and paper, such as a human mentally determining a embedding space as a graph structure including nodes representing users and entities and edges/connections representing events between them);
disregarding a portion of the set of second data structures, for a selected user in the set of users, using a condition in order to generate a subset of the set of second data structures (a mental process of determination, such as a human mentally disregarding a portion of the data structures for a selected user and based on a condition, resulting in a mentally determined subset of the set of second data structures);
identifying at least one relevant entity, from the subset of the set of second data structures, using the embedding space (a mental process of determination, such as a human identifying at least one relevant entity from a subset using the embedding space);
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, these steps may be performed mentally, using mental observation and mental determination, including by a human using a physical aid such as pen and paper, including a human mentally performing observations and mentally performing mathematical calculations, and therefore correspond to the Mental Processes grouping.
Step 2a Prong Two (Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?): No.
Claim 8 additionally recites:
the embedding space is generated by a machine learning system, and the at least one communication is generated by the machine learning system (mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f));
receiving, from a data source, a set of first data structures associated with a set of users (insignificant extra-solution activity as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(g));
receiving, from the data source, a set of second data structures associated with a set of entities (insignificant extra-solution activity as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(g));
receiving event information associated with the set of users and the set of entities (insignificant extra-solution activity as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(g));
generate at least one communication associated with the at least one relevant entity (insignificant extra-solution activity as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(g)); and
outputting the at least one communication (insignificant extra-solution activity as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Therefore, in view of the considerations set forth in MPEP 2106.04(d), 2106.05(a)-(c) and (e)-(h), the additional elements as disclosed above alone or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application as they are mere insignificant extra solution activity, combined with implementing the abstract idea using generic computer components.
Step 2b (Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to siqnificantly more than the judicial exception): No. Relying on the same analysis as Step 2a Prong Two (see MPEP 2106.05.I.A: Limitations that the courts have found not to be enough to qualify as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with a judicial exception include:…Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a limitation indicating that a particular function such as creating and maintaining electronic records is performed by a computer, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225-26, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP 2106.05(f));…Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception...; Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(g);…)), claim 8 does not recite any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As discussed above, Claim 8 recites:
the embedding space is generated by a machine learning system, and the at least one communication is generated by the machine learning system (mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f));
receiving, from a data source, a set of first data structures associated with a set of users (insignificant extra-solution activity as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(g), such as transmitting data over a network, reevaluated to include well understood, routine, conventional activity under MPEP 2106.05(d), such as mere data gathering and outputting);
receiving, from the data source, a set of second data structures associated with a set of entities (insignificant extra-solution activity as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(g), such as transmitting data over a network, reevaluated to include well understood, routine, conventional activity under MPEP 2106.05(d), such as mere data gathering and outputting);
receiving event information associated with the set of users and the set of entities (insignificant extra-solution activity as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(g), such as transmitting data over a network, reevaluated to include well understood, routine, conventional activity under MPEP 2106.05(d), such as mere data gathering and outputting);
generate at least one communication associated with the at least one relevant entity (insignificant extra-solution activity as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(g), such as transmitting data over a network, reevaluated to include well understood, routine, conventional activity under MPEP 2106.05(d), such as mere data gathering and outputting); and
outputting the at least one communication (insignificant extra-solution activity as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(g), such as transmitting data over a network, reevaluated to include well understood, routine, conventional activity under MPEP 2106.05(d), such as mere data gathering and outputting).
The additional elements as discussed above, in combination with the abstract idea, are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as they are well, understood, routine and conventional activity as disclosed in combination with generic computer functions and components used to implement the abstract idea.
Regarding dependent claim 2:
Step 2a Prong One: incorporates the rejection of claim 1.
Step 2a Prong Two: the claim additionally recites wherein the one or more processors are configured to: receive a set of credentials associated with the event information, wherein the event information is received using the set of credentials (insignificant extra-solution activity as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(g).
Step 2b: the claim additionally recites wherein the one or more processors are configured to: receive a set of credentials associated with the event information, wherein the event information is received using the set of credentials (insignificant extra-solution activity as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(g), such as transmitting data over a network, reevaluated to include well understood, routine, conventional activity under MPEP 2106.05(d), such as mere data gathering and outputting).
Regarding dependent claim 3:
Step 2a Prong One: incorporates the rejection of claim 1.
Step 2a Prong Two: the claim additionally recites wherein the one or more processors are configured to: receive a set of opt-in messages associated with the set of users, wherein the set of first nodes are generated in response to the set of opt-in messages (insignificant extra-solution activity as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(g).
Step 2b: the claim additionally recites wherein the one or more processors are configured to: receive a set of opt-in messages associated with the set of users, wherein the set of first nodes are generated in response to the set of opt-in messages (insignificant extra-solution activity as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(g), such as transmitting data over a network, reevaluated to include well understood, routine, conventional activity under MPEP 2106.05(d), such as mere data gathering and outputting).
Regarding dependent claim 4:
Step 2a Prong One: incorporates the rejection of claim 1; the claim further recites wherein the weighted distances are calculated using the set of weights (a mental process, including a mental process involving a mathematical calculation and including using a physical aid such as pen and paper, of calculating the weighted distances using a set of weights).
Step 2a Prong Two: the claim additionally recites wherein the one or more processors are configured to: receive a set of weights associated with the set of entities (insignificant extra-solution activity as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Step 2b: the claim additionally recites wherein the one or more processors are configured to: receive a set of weights associated with the set of entities (insignificant extra-solution activity as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(g), such as transmitting data over a network, reevaluated to include well understood, routine, conventional activity under MPEP 2106.05(d), such as mere data gathering and outputting).
Regarding dependent claim 5:
Step 2a Prong One: incorporates the rejection of claim 1; the claim further recites identify at least one relevant entity, represented by a second node in the portion of the set of second nodes, as a nearest neighbor using the weighted distances, wherein the at least one communication is associated with the at least one relevant entity (a mental process, including a mental process involving a mathematical calculation and including using a physical aid such as pen and paper, of a human mentally identifying the relevant entity represented by a node in a set of nodes as a nearest neighbor using weighted distances).
Step 2a Prong Two: the claim additionally recites wherein the one or more processors are configured to (mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Step 2b: the claim additionally recites wherein the one or more processors are configured to (mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Regarding dependent claim 6:
Step 2a Prong One: incorporates the rejection of claim 1; the claim further recites select the at least one communication, from a plurality of candidate communications, using the weighted distances (a mental process, including a mental process involving a mathematical calculation and including using a physical aid such as pen and paper, of a human mentally selecting a communication from a plurality of candidate communications).
Step 2a Prong Two: the claim additionally recites wherein the one or more processors, to generate the at least one communication, are configured to: (mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Step 2b: the claim additionally recites wherein the one or more processors, to generate the at least one communication, are configured to: (mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Regarding dependent claim 7:
Step 2a Prong One: incorporates the rejection of claim 1.
Step 2a Prong Two: the claims additionally recite wherein the event information is associated with a first time period, and the at least one communication is associated with a second time period subsequent to the first time period (a field of use and technological environment as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Step 2b: the claims additionally recite wherein the event information is associated with a first time period, and the at least one communication is associated with a second time period subsequent to the first time period (a field of use and technological environment as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Regarding dependent claim 9:
Step 2a Prong One: incorporates the rejection of claim 8.
Step 2a Prong Two: the claim additionally recites receiving, from an administrator device, an indication of the condition (insignificant extra-solution activity as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Step 2b: the claim additionally recites receiving, from an administrator device, an indication of the condition (insignificant extra-solution activity as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(g), such as transmitting data over a network, reevaluated to include well understood, routine, conventional activity under MPEP 2106.05(d), such as mere data gathering and outputting).
Regarding dependent claim 10:
Step 2a Prong One: incorporates the rejection of claim 8.
Step 2a Prong Two: the claim additionally recites receiving, from an administrator device, a data structure encoding the at least one communication (insignificant extra-solution activity as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Step 2b: the claim additionally recites receiving, from an administrator device, a data structure encoding the at least one communication (insignificant extra-solution activity as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(g), such as transmitting data over a network, reevaluated to include well understood, routine, conventional activity under MPEP 2106.05(d), such as mere data gathering and outputting).
Regarding dependent claim 11:
Step 2a Prong One: incorporates the rejection of claim 8.
Step 2a Prong Two: the claim additionally recites receiving, from an administrator device, a data structure encoding a plurality of candidate communications, wherein the at least one communication is generated from the plurality of candidate communications (insignificant extra-solution activity as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Step 2b: the claim additionally recites receiving, from an administrator device, a data structure encoding a plurality of candidate communications, wherein the at least one communication is generated from the plurality of candidate communications (insignificant extra-solution activity as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(g), such as transmitting data over a network, reevaluated to include well understood, routine, conventional activity under MPEP 2106.05(d), such as mere data gathering and outputting).
Regarding dependent claim 12:
Step 2a Prong One: incorporates the rejection of claim 8.
Step 2a Prong Two: the claim additionally recites transmitting, to an administrator device, an indication that the at least one communication was output (insignificant extra-solution activity as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Step 2b: the claim additionally recites transmitting, to an administrator device, an indication that the at least one communication was output (insignificant extra-solution activity as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(g), such as transmitting data over a network, reevaluated to include well understood, routine, conventional activity under MPEP 2106.05(d), such as mere data gathering and outputting).
Regarding dependent claim 13:
Step 2a Prong One: incorporates the rejection of claim 8.
Step 2a Prong Two: the claim additionally recites transmitting, to an administrator device, an indication of an amount associated with output of the at least one communication (insignificant extra-solution activity as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Step 2b: the claim additionally recites transmitting, to an administrator device, an indication of an amount associated with output of the at least one communication (insignificant extra-solution activity as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(g), such as transmitting data over a network, reevaluated to include well understood, routine, conventional activity under MPEP 2106.05(d), such as mere data gathering and outputting).
Regarding dependent claim 14:
Step 2a Prong One: incorporates the rejection of claim 8.
Step 2a Prong Two: the claim additionally recites wherein outputting the at least one communication comprises: transmitting the at least one communication to a user device associated with the selected user (insignificant extra-solution activity as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Step 2b: the claim additionally recites wherein outputting the at least one communication comprises: transmitting the at least one communication to a user device associated with the selected user (insignificant extra-solution activity as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(g), such as transmitting data over a network, reevaluated to include well understood, routine, conventional activity under MPEP 2106.05(d), such as mere data gathering and outputting).
Therefore, in view of the considerations set forth in MPEP 2106.04(d), 2106.05(a)-(c) and (e)-(h), the additional elements as recited in the dependent claims discussed above alone or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application as they are mere insignificant extra solution activity, combined with implementing the abstract idea using generic computer components, and limitations describing a field of use or technological environment. The additional elements as discussed above, in combination with the abstract idea, are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as they are well, understood, routine and conventional activity as disclosed in combination with generic computer functions and components used to implement the abstract idea, and limitations describing a field of use or technological environment.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4-9, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mauer et al. (US 20220141263 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Mauer teaches a system for applying rules to improve nearest neighbor matching, the system comprising: one or more memories; and one or more processors, communicatively coupled to the one or more memories (e.g. paragraphs 0038-0039, computing device comprising processors and memory/memories storing functional components executable by processor to perform described actions), configured to:
receive a set of first data structures associated with a set of users (e.g. paragraph 0092, Fig. 3 step 302, receiving communication data associated with user, paragraph 0093, receiving communication data based on requesting from data store; paragraph 0094, communication received in association with particular features, such as user profile, etc.; i.e. receiving communication data including data associated with/corresponding to a set of one or more users);
receive a set of second data structures associated with a set of entities (e.g. paragraph 0092, Fig. 3 step 302, receiving communication data associated with channel, paragraph 0093, receiving communication data based on requesting from data store; paragraph 0094, communication received in association with particular features, such as a channel, etc.; i.e. receiving communication data including data associated with/corresponding to a set of one or more channels);
receive event information associated with the set of users and the set of entities (e.g. paragraph 0095, Fig. 3 step 306, identifying representation of interactions involving the communication platform; representation identifies user’s interaction with one or more channels, etc., such as determining number and type of interactions user K. Janeway had with channel Project A, etc.; also includes degree of interaction between any features of the communication platform such as users, teams of users, channels, files, workspaces, emojis, reactions, etc.; interactions/activity between user and channels, user and users, channel and channels, channel and users, user and files, file and users, file and channels, channel and files, channel and emojis, etc.; i.e. receiving the communication data which also includes interaction data associated with the users and channels, analogous to event data);
generate an embedding space that encodes: a set of first nodes representing the set of users and based on the set of first data structures, a set of second nodes representing the set of entities and based on the set of second data structures, and a set of connections, between the set of first nodes and the set of second nodes, based on the event information (e.g. paragraph 0075, Figs. 2A and 2B, graph representations of interactions between features of communication platform including representation 200 mapping interactions between users and channels and representation 202 mapping interactions between users and users; paragraph 0084, representation 200 is a graph having first dimension of nodes associated with users and a second dimension of nodes associated with channels; edges indicate association between them with a weight indicating a degree of interaction between the user and the channel; paragraph 0086, creating edges between user node and channels based on user’s interactions with the channels; paragraphs 0089-0090, describing similar graph construction for user-user interactions; paragraph 0096, Fig. 3 step 312, generating a data structure comprising a first embedding associated with the representation; generating SVD for portion of graph associated with user; the data structure comprises different embeddings per user such as when the representation maps users to channels; labels, reference identifiers, indication of directionality, etc. appended or associated with the embedding; paragraph 0098, embedding may be tensor, vector, etc. comprising many dimensions; Fig. 3 depicts a two-dimensional representation 316 of embeddings generated in association with user over a first time period; i.e. where the users and channels are represented as nodes and the interactions/events between them are represented as edges in a graph data structure, and an embedding space is further generated which encodes the graph data structure of nodes and edges representing, users, channels, and their interactions/events);
identify a portion of the set of second nodes, for a selected first node in the set of first nodes, using a condition applied to the set of second nodes (e.g. paragraph 0100, Fig. 3 step 322, computing similarity between the first embedding and other embeddings in the data structure; paragraph 0101, operation 322 in response to a request received from an API; may comprise identifying the representation based on representation type or specified features, including based on/specified by the request, such as where a user joins a channel and the request specifies a portion of the channel-to-user embedding/representation for the channel that the user just joined, such as to identify users that interact similarity with the channel or channels similar to the user’s pattern of use; i.e. a portion of the graph data structure including the channels/channel nodes may be identified, such as based on a corresponding request, where the request serves as the condition applied to select/identify the portion including the nodes);
calculate weighted distances using a portion of the set of connections that corresponds to the portion of the set of second nodes and the selected first node (e.g. paragraph 0018, selection of nearest neighbors based in part on distance; paragraph 0084, weights between nodes (users and channels, etc.) have associated weights; paragraph 0100, Fig. 3 step 322, computing similarity between embeddings in the data structure; paragraph 0102, determining similarity between embeddings using distance between the embeddings in the embedding space; paragraph 0118, determining nearest n number of neighboring embeddings in the embedding space; paragraph 0119, determination/identification further based on associated probabilities; paragraph 0120, ranking candidates according to different target metrics; paragraph 0121, average or weighted average of probabilities; i.e. the system calculates a set of nearest features/nodes/embeddings based on distance between them, further weighted/ranked according to some additional weight/probability/metric);
generate at least one communication based on the weighted distances (e.g. paragraph 0104, Fig. 3 step 324, causing actions by the communication platform based on the similarity; providing recommendations to user to cause actions at the communication platform, such as adding a user to a channel, inviting another user to a channel, adding a user as a recipient of a direct message or as a mention in an in-channel message, etc.; i.e. where, based on the similarity, a communication may be generated, such as an invitation to be used by the user to invite another user to a channel, a direct message to/about/including the other user, etc.); and
transmit the at least one communication to a user device associated with a user, in the set of users, represented by the selected first node (e.g. paragraph 0104, Fig. 3 step 324, causing actions by the communication platform based on the similarity; causing presentation of one or more recommendations at a computing device associated with the user; the presentation may comprise a selectable element of the user interface; recommendations based on top n numbered candidates; receiving user input corresponding to one of the recommendations may cause one or more actions at the communication platform; i.e. where the recommendation for the proposed action, such as the invitation, direct message, etc. is provided/transmitted to the user’s device as a selectable user interface element for causing the proposed action to be performed, such as to send the invitation to another user, etc.).
With respect to claim 2, Mauer teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as previously discussed, and further teaches wherein the one or more processors are configured to: receive a set of credentials associated with the event information, wherein the event information is received using the set of credentials (e.g. paragraph 0035, groups of users defined by group identifiers/common access credentials; paragraph 0055, APIs given application permissions to receive communication data; paragraph 0058, permissions data associated with permissions of individual users indicating which users can communicate directly with other users, which channels user is permitted to access, restrictions on individual channels, etc.; permissions support communication platform by maintaining security for limiting access to a defined group of users, such as users defined by common access credentials, etc.; paragraph 0087, normalizing weights associated with edges/interactions based on other interactions including interactions across a subset of users having a same identifier, same permission level, same team identifier, etc.; i.e. access to information on the system, such as communication data, interaction data, etc., is based on user/API credentials and permissions, such that the event information is received based on/using corresponding credentials of the requesting entity).
With respect to claim 4, Mauer teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as previously discussed, and further teaches wherein the one or more processors are configured to: receive a set of weights associated with the set of entities, wherein the weighted distances are calculated using the set of weights (e.g. paragraph 0018, selection of nearest neighbors and associated weights based in part on distance; paragraph 0026, candidate features weighted based on associated probabilities; paragraph 0027, selecting candidate feature for proposal based on ranking of candidate features; paragraph 0084, edges between nodes (users and channels, etc.) have associated weights; paragraph 0100, Fig. 3 step 322, computing similarity between embeddings in the data structure; paragraph 0102, determining similarity between embeddings using distance between the embeddings in the embedding space; paragraph 0118, determining nearest n number of neighboring embeddings in the embedding space; paragraph 0119, determination/identification further based on associated probabilities; paragraph 0120, ranking candidates according to different target metrics; paragraph 0121, average or weighted average of probabilities; i.e. the system calculates a set of nearest features/nodes/embeddings based on distance between them, further weighted/ranked according to some additional weight/probability/metric).
With respect to claim 5, Mauer teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as previously discussed, and further teaches wherein the one or more processors are configured to: identify at least one relevant entity, represented by a second node in the portion of the set of second nodes, as a nearest neighbor using the weighted distances, wherein the at least one communication is associated with the at least one relevant entity (e.g. paragraph 0018, identifying nearest n number of neighbors in embedding space and associated features; paragraph 0026, candidate features weighted based on associated probabilities; paragraph 0027, selecting candidate feature for proposal based on ranking of candidate features, such as recommendations to cause user to join a channel, add another recipient for draft message, add another user to aa channel, etc.; paragraph 0043, determining embedding, identifying nearest neighbors and returning indication of features; paragraph 0100, Fig. 3 step 322, computing similarity between the first embedding and other embeddings in the data structure; paragraph 0101, operation 322 in response to a request received from an API; may comprise identifying the representation based on representation type or specified features, including based on/specified by the request, such as where a user joins a channel and the request specifies a portion of the channel-to-user embedding/representation for the channel that the user just joined, such as to identify users that interact similarity with the channel or channels similar to the user’s pattern of use; i.e. a portion of the graph data structure including the channels/channel nodes may be identified, such as based on a corresponding request, where the request serves as the condition applied to select/identify the portion including the nodes; i.e. a relevant entity, such as a channel for the user to join, or for the user to invite another user to join, is identified as relevant for the purpose of suggesting a feature, such as a communication/invitation, for the user, based on distance and weighting).
With respect to claim 6, Mauer teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as previously discussed, and further teaches wherein the one or more processors, to generate the at least one communication, are configured to: select the at least one communication, from a plurality of candidate communications, using the weighted distances (e.g. paragraph 0018, identifying nearest n number of neighbors in embedding space and associated features; paragraph 0026, candidate features weighted based on associated probabilities; paragraph 0027, selecting candidate feature for proposal based on ranking of candidate features, such as recommendations to cause user to join a channel, add another recipient for draft message, add another user to aa channel, etc.; paragraph 0043, determining embedding, identifying nearest neighbors and returning indication of features; paragraph 0065, candidate features submitted responsive to request at API; request generated based on user joining a channel may trigger candidates generated based on graph embedding, channel membership, etc.; paragraph 0067, subset of output of candidate ranking to be presented to user; paragraph 0104, Fig. 3 step 324, causing actions by the communication platform based on the similarity; providing recommendations to user to cause actions at the communication platform, such as adding a user to a channel, inviting another user to a channel, adding a user as a recipient of a direct message or as a mention in an in-channel message, etc.; recommendations based on top n numbered candidates, etc.; i.e. where the selected candidate feature to be proposed to the user is a communication such as an invitation for another user, an addition of another user to a message, etc., and a subset of these is selected for presentation to the user based on a ranking that is based on graph embeddings (i.e. including nearest neighbor, etc.) and weightings of candidates, this is analogous to selecting at least one communication from a plurality of candidate communications using weighted distances).
With respect to claim 7, Mauer teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as previously discussed, and further teaches wherein the event information is associated with a first time period, and the at least one communication is associated with a second time period subsequent to the first time period (e.g. paragraph 0046, making call to embedding component when user joins a channel, enters two or more users as recipients for message, starts typing a subject or body of a message, starts typing search query, etc.; paragraph 0049-0050, historical communication data/history of embeddings and representations associated with the communication data; paragraphs 0076 and 0081, generating/receiving representations based on given time window(s); paragraphs 0086-0087, describing user’s interactions with channels as past/previous interactions; i.e. the suggested action, such as recommendation to invite another user to a channel, to add another user to a message, etc., is performed in response to a new/current operation by the user (such as newly joining a channel, drafting a new message, etc.), while the event information/interaction data utilized is associated with a prior/historical time period/window).
With respect to claim 8, Mauer teaches a method of applying rules to improve nearest neighbor matching, comprising:
receiving, from a data source, a set of first data structures associated with a set of users (e.g. paragraph 0092, Fig. 3 step 302, receiving communication data associated with user, paragraph 0093, receiving communication data based on requesting from data store; paragraph 0094, communication received in association with particular features, such as user profile, etc.; i.e. receiving communication data including data associated with/corresponding to a set of one or more users);
receiving, from the data source, a set of second data structures associated with a set of entities (e.g. paragraph 0092, Fig. 3 step 302, receiving communication data associated with channel, paragraph 0093, receiving communication data based on requesting from data store; paragraph 0094, communication received in association with particular features, such as a channel, etc.; i.e. receiving communication data including data associated with/corresponding to a set of one or more channels);
receiving event information associated with the set of users and the set of entities (e.g. paragraph 0095, Fig. 3 step 306, identifying representation of interactions involving the communication platform; representation identifies user’s interaction with one or more channels, etc., such as determining number and type of interactions user K. Janeway had with channel Project A, etc.; also includes degree of interaction between any features of the communication platform such as users, teams of users, channels, files, workspaces, emojis, reactions, etc.; interactions/activity between user and channels, user and users, channel and channels, channel and users, user and files, file and users, file and channels, channel and files, channel and emojis, etc.; i.e. receiving the communication data which also includes interaction data associated with the users and channels, analogous to event data);
generating, by a machine learning system, an embedding space that represents the set of first data structures, the set of second data structures, and the event information (e.g. paragraph 0052, embedding is a machine-learned classification or a representation; embedding algorithm including neural network, etc.; paragraph 0075, Figs. 2A and 2B, graph representations of interactions between features of communication platform including representation 200 mapping interactions between users and channels and representation 202 mapping interactions between users and users; paragraph 0084, representation 200 is a graph having first dimension of nodes associated with users and a second dimension of nodes associated with channels; edges indicate association between them with a weight indicating a degree of interaction between the user and the channel; paragraph 0086, creating edges between user node and channels based on user’s interactions with the channels; paragraphs 0089-0090, describing similar graph construction for user-user interactions; paragraph 0096, Fig. 3 step 312, generating a data structure comprising a first embedding associated with the representation; generating SVD for portion of graph associated with user; the data structure comprises different embeddings per user such as when the representation maps users to channels; labels, reference identifiers, indication of directionality, etc. appended or associated with the embedding; paragraph 0098, embedding may be tensor, vector, etc. comprising many dimensions; Fig. 3 depicts a two-dimensional representation 316 of embeddings generated in association with user over a first time period; i.e. where the users and channels are represented as nodes and the interactions/events between them are represented as edges in a graph data structure, and an embedding space is further generated which encodes the graph data structure of nodes and edges representing, users, channels, and their interactions/events);
disregarding a portion of the set of second data structures, for a selected user in the set of users, using a condition in order to generate a subset of the set of second data structures (e.g. paragraph 0100, Fig. 3 step 322, computing similarity between the first embedding and other embeddings in the data structure; paragraph 0101, operation 322 in response to a request received from an API; may comprise identifying the representation based on representation type or specified features, including based on/specified by the request, such as where a user joins a channel and the request specifies a portion of the channel-to-user embedding/representation for the channel that the user just joined, such as to identify users that interact similarity with the channel or channels similar to the user’s pattern of use; i.e. a portion of the graph data structure including the channels/channel nodes may be identified, such as based on a corresponding request, where the request serves as the condition applied to select/identify the portion including the nodes, and where the identification of the portion of the graph data also includes disregarding the remaining portions of the graph data);
identifying at least one relevant entity, from the subset of the set of second data structures, using the embedding space (e.g. paragraph 0018, selection of nearest neighbors based in part on distance; paragraph 0084, weights between nodes (users and channels, etc.) have associated weights; paragraph 0100, Fig. 3 step 322, computing similarity between embeddings in the data structure; paragraph 0102, determining similarity between embeddings using distance between the embeddings in the embedding space; paragraph 0118, determining nearest n number of neighboring embeddings in the embedding space; paragraph 0119, determination/identification further based on associated probabilities; paragraph 0120, ranking candidates according to different target metrics; paragraph 0121, average or weighted average of probabilities; i.e. the system calculates a set of nearest features/nodes/embeddings based on distance between them, further weighted/ranked according to some additional weight/probability/metric);
generating, by the machine learning system, at least one communication associated with the at least one relevant entity (e.g. paragraph 0104, Fig. 3 step 324, causing actions by the communication platform based on the similarity; providing recommendations to user to cause actions at the communication platform, such as adding a user to a channel, inviting another user to a channel, adding a user as a recipient of a direct message or as a mention in an in-channel message, etc.; i.e. where, based on the similarity, a communication may be generated, such as an invitation to be used by the user to invite another user to a channel, a direct message to/about/including the other user, etc.); and
outputting the at least one communication (e.g. paragraph 0104, Fig. 3 step 324, causing actions by the communication platform based on the similarity; causing presentation of one or more recommendations at a computing device associated with the user; the presentation may comprise a selectable element of the user interface; recommendations based on top n numbered candidates; receiving user input corresponding to one of the recommendations may cause one or more actions at the communication platform; i.e. where the recommendation for the proposed action, such as the invitation, direct message, etc. is provided/transmitted to the user’s device as a selectable user interface element for causing the proposed action to be performed, such as to send the invitation to another user, etc.).
With respect to claim 9, Mauer teaches all of the limitations of claim 8 as previously discussed, and further teaches receiving, from an administrator device, an indication of the condition (e.g. paragraph 0013, part of representation computed on the fly in response to request or input of a user; paragraph 0015, API receiving request to provide a candidate feature from another component of the communication platform; paragraph 0016, upon receiving request, API causing candidate generation component to generate/retrieve graph embedding associated with the request; request may specify or be associated with a particular type of representation; paragraph 0018, identifying graph embedding associated with the request and identifying nearest n neighbors in the embedding space; paragraph 0036, communication platform servers may be hosted by entity administering communications network; paragraph 0051, administrator of organization’s account providing setting information; paragraph 0060, users of communication platform has particular roles, including an administrator role; paragraph 0101, operation 322 in response to a request received from an API; may comprise identifying the representation based on representation type or specified features, including based on/specified by the request, such as where a user joins a channel and the request specifies a portion of the channel-to-user embedding/representation for the channel that the user just joined, such as to identify users that interact similarity with the channel or channels similar to the user’s pattern of use; i.e. the received request may provide information which serves as a condition for selecting/identifying a relevant set of entities/nodes in the graph structure (and therefore disregarding the remaining portion), where the request may be further received from an administrator device, such as a communications platform device which is owned by an administering entity, or a device of a user who has an administrator role).
With respect to claim 14, Mauer teaches all of the limitations of claim 8 as previously discussed, and further teaches wherein outputting the at least one communication comprises: transmitting the at least one communication to a user device associated with the selected user (e.g. paragraph 0104, Fig. 3 step 324, causing actions by the communication platform based on the similarity; causing presentation of one or more recommendations at a computing device associated with the user; the presentation may comprise a selectable element of the user interface; recommendations based on top n numbered candidates; receiving user input corresponding to one of the recommendations may cause one or more actions at the communication platform; i.e. where the recommendation for the proposed action, such as the invitation, direct message, etc. is provided/transmitted to the user’s device as a selectable user interface element for causing the proposed action to be performed, such as to send the invitation to another user, etc.).
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102€, (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mauer in view of Serena (US 20220360554 A1).
With respect to claim 3, Mauer teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as previously discussed. Mauer does not explicitly disclose wherein the one or more processors are configured to: receive a set of opt-in messages associated with the set of users, wherein the set of first nodes are generated in response to the set of opt-in messages. However, Serena teaches wherein the one or more processors are configured to: receive a set of opt-in messages associated with the set of users, wherein the set of first nodes are generated in response to the set of opt-in messages (e.g. paragraphs 0038-0039, Fig. 2, graph is ordered pair of set of vertices/nodes and edges; Users 1, 2, 4, and 5 opt in to inferred social network and so graph structure 1020 is inferred based on information obtained from observations of users; i.e. an inferred graph structure representing users as nodes is generated based on the users opting in (i.e. via opt in messages)).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention having the teachings of Mauer and Serena in front of him to have modified the teachings of Mauer (directed to embeddings-based discovery and exposure of communication platform features), to incorporate the teachings of Serena (directed to social network graph inference and aggregation with portability, protected shared content, and application programs spanning multiple social networks) to include the capability for users to indicate consent to creation of their representation as a node in the graph structure, and to create the graph in response to receiving the user’s consent/opting in. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to perform such a modification in order to provide increased social network portability and privacy as described in Serena (paragraph 0009).
Claim 10-13 and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mauer in view of Moore (US 20170257330 A1).
With respect to claim 10, Mauer teaches all of the limitations of claim 8 as previously discussed. Moore does not explicitly disclose receiving, from an administrator device, a data structure encoding the at least one communication. However, Moore, teaches receiving, from an administrator device, a data structure encoding the at least one communication (e.g. paragraph 0007, receiving definition of schema that includes message type and one or more required content fields; paragraph 0039, administrator defining message parameters; defining particular type of structured message; adding fields to schema for the message type; paragraph 0068, receiving definition for at least one schema for a particular type of structured message; paragraph 0072, system configurable so that administrator can define structure of the messages).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention having the teachings of Mauer and Moore in front of him to have modified the teachings of Mauer (directed to embeddings-based discovery and exposure of communication platform features), to incorporate the teachings of Moore (directed to structured messaging) to include the capability for an administrator to provide a data structure, such as a schema, encoding a communication. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to perform such a modification in order to provide more advanced messaging solutions than services that only provide secure messaging as described in Moore (paragraph 0006).
With respect to claim 11, Mauer teaches all of the limitations of claim 8 as previously discussed, and further teaches wherein the at least one communication is generated from the plurality of candidate communications (e.g. paragraph 0018, identifying nearest n number of neighbors in embedding space and associated features; paragraph 0026, candidate features weighted based on associated probabilities; paragraph 0027, selecting candidate feature for proposal based on ranking of candidate features, such as recommendations to cause user to join a channel, add another recipient for draft message, add another user to aa channel, etc.; paragraph 0104, Fig. 3 step 324, causing actions by the communication platform based on the similarity; causing presentation of one or more recommendations at a computing device associated with the user; the presentation may comprise a selectable element of the user interface; recommendations based on top n numbered candidates; receiving user input corresponding to one of the recommendations may cause one or more actions at the communication platform i.e. a plurality of recommendations may be displayed as selectable elements, including different types of communication, for the user to select).
Mauer does not explicitly disclose receiving, from an administrator device, a data structure encoding a plurality of candidate communications. However, Moore teaches receiving, from an administrator device, a data structure encoding a plurality of candidate communications (e.g. paragraph 0039, message parameters defined by administrator, such as permitting only certain predefined types of messages in the system; paragraph 0068, receiving definition for at least one schema for a particular type of structured message; defined schemata stored in memory; i.e. the system may receive an input, or a set of inputs, of an administrator specifying the different types of messages which are permitted in the system, such as one or more (i.e. multiple) schemas defining the permitted message types, analogous to a data structure (such as the collective set of permitted message types) encoding a plurality of candidate communications).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention having the teachings of Mauer and Moore in front of him to have modified the teachings of Mauer (directed to embeddings-based discovery and exposure of communication platform features), to incorporate the teachings of Moore (directed to structured messaging) to include the capability for an administrator to provide a data structure, such as a schema, encoding a plurality of potential/possible (i.e. candidate) communications, such as by providing a set of schemas which collectively define a plurality of permitted message types. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to perform such a modification in order to provide more advanced messaging solutions than services that only provide secure messaging as described in Moore (paragraph 0006).
With respect to claim 12, Mauer teaches all of the limitations of claim 8 as previously discussed. Mauer does not explicitly disclose transmitting, to an administrator device, an indication that the at least one communication was output. However, Moore teaches transmitting, to an administrator device, an indication that the at least one communication was output (e.g. paragraph 0008, monitoring structured messages, determining average metric; when average metric reaches threshold, generating and sending further message that relates to said threshold being passed, such as time taken to respond to structured message; paragraph 0059, Fig. 3 is UI as would be seen by administrator and includes a Messages tab which includes messages sent, and a Reports tab, which shows analytical data based on messages; paragraph 0066, Fig. 9, describing display of message analytics according to type of message, including numbers of messages sent per type of message; i.e. once the message is sent, one or more indications that this has occurred will be shown at the administrator device, such as where the sent messages would be included within a messages tab of the administrator interface, or where the sending of the message would be reflected in message analytics displays which are based at least in part on the sent message (such as a message regarding a threshold being met with respect to a set of messages that includes the sent message, or the sent message being reflected in respective data analytics for the type of message in the user interface)).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention having the teachings of Mauer and Moore in front of him to have modified the teachings of Mauer (directed to embeddings-based discovery and exposure of communication platform features), to incorporate the teachings of Moore (directed to structured messaging) to include the capability to provide, to the administrator, an indication of the message being sent, such as by showing the message as a sent message in a corresponding portion of the administrator user interface, or reflecting the message as sent by including it in a statistical count of messages sent in a message analytics display. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to perform such a modification in order to provide more advanced messaging solutions than services that only provide secure messaging as described in Moore (paragraph 0006).
With respect to claim 13, Mauer teaches all of the limitations of claim 8 as previously discussed. Mauer does not explicitly disclose transmitting, to an administrator device, an indication of an amount associated with output of the at least one communication. However, Moore teaches transmitting, to an administrator device, an indication of an amount associated with output of the at least one communication (e.g. paragraph 0008, monitoring structured messages, determining average metric; when average metric reaches threshold, generating and sending further message that relates to said threshold being passed, such as time taken to respond to structured message; paragraph 0059, Fig. 3 is UI as would be seen by administrator and includes a Messages tab which includes messages sent, and a Reports tab, which shows analytical data based on messages; paragraph 0066, Fig. 9, describing display of message analytics according to type of message, including numbers of messages sent per type of message; i.e. once the message is sent, one or more indications of an amount associated with the output of the message will be shown at the administrator device, such as in message analytics displays which are based at least in part on the sent message (such as a message regarding a threshold being met with respect to a set of messages that includes the sent message, or the sent message being reflected in respective data analytics for the type of message in the user interface, including a total amount of the messages of the same type being sent, being received, being delayed, and associated statistical average amounts associated with the message type)).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention having the teachings of Mauer and Moore in front of him to have modified the teachings of Mauer (directed to embeddings-based discovery and exposure of communication platform features), to incorporate the teachings of Moore (directed to structured messaging) to include the capability to provide, to the administrator, an indication of an amount associated with sending the message, such as by showing various amounts for message analytics, including as a statistical count of messages sent in a message analytics display along with various other analytics based on the message being sent. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to perform such a modification in order to provide more advanced messaging solutions than services that only provide secure messaging as described in Moore (paragraph 0006).
With respect to claim 15, Mauer teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a set of instructions for configuring rules to improve nearest neighbor matching, the set of instructions comprising: one or more instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of a device (e.g. paragraphs 0038-0039, computing device comprising processors and memory/memories storing functional components executable by processor to perform described actions), cause the device to:
transmit, to a remote system, a registration message that authorizes a remote system to access event information (e.g. paragraph 0035, groups of users defined by group identifiers/common access credentials; paragraph 0036, communication platform servers may be distributed at multiple different locations; paragraphs 0041-0042, host communication application of communication platform interacting with client computing devices via APIs; application 118 enabling user devices to interact with servers and access communication services; paragraph 0043, host communication application including capability to access APIs exposing back end functions offered by communication platform servers, including for receiving communication data from computing devices, etc.; paragraph 0045, communication platform servers 102 including datastore 128 containing communication data 130; paragraph 0050, indicating that communication data 130 includes data indicative of interaction patterns between users and channels, etc. within the communication platform; paragraph 0055, APIs of applications given permissions to receive communication data, allowing the application to take actions outside of the communication platform or within the communication platform that are related to communication data; application may compromise SaaS or cloud based services, local application running on user computing device, etc.; paragraph 0058, permissions data associated with permissions of individual users indicating which users can communicate directly with other users, which channels user is permitted to access, restrictions on individual channels, etc.; permissions support communication platform by maintaining security for limiting access to a defined group of users, such as users defined by common access credentials, etc.; paragraph 0087, normalizing weights associated with edges/interactions based on other interactions including interactions across a subset of users having a same identifier, same permission level, same team identifier, etc.; i.e. access to information on the system, such as communication data, interaction data, etc., is based on user/API/application credentials and permissions, such that the communication platform servers providing/granting the appropriate access permissions for a user or API which is outside of the communication platform (or by an API within the communication platform but on a server which is remote from the server hosting the communication data) to access the communication data, interaction data, etc. is analogous to transmitting, to a remote system, a registration message authorizing the remote system to access event information);
transmit, to the remote system, an indication of a condition (e.g. paragraph 0015, API receiving request to provide candidate feature from another component of the communication platform; paragraphs 0018-0019, identifying graph embeddings associated with the request; number specified by request, which may be based on type of the request, etc.; paragraph 0045, request made by API to identify/reference items in datastore 128 (e.g. communication data, embeddings, etc.); paragraph 0065, request associated with subset of candidate generation components; request generated by search query; request based on user joining channel, etc.; paragraph 0101, request received from an API; representation type or specified features, based on/specified by the request, such as where a user joins a channel and the request specifies a portion of the channel-to-user embedding/representation for the channel that the user just joined, such as to identify users that interact similarity with the channel or channels similar to the user’s pattern of use; i.e. a portion of the graph data structure including the channels/channel nodes may be identified, such as based on a corresponding request, where the request serves as the condition applied to select/identify the portion including the nodes; i.e. receiving a request, including from a remote system (such as a user device, external application/API, or API hosted on a server which is remote from the server hosting the communication data), where the content or context of the request explicitly or implicitly indicates a condition associated with the request (such a request for specific items in a datastore, a request based on/comprising a specific query, etc., but also including requests which are based on a type of user interaction such as joining a channel, drafting a message, etc.));
transmit, to the remote system, a data structure encoding at least one communication (e.g. paragraphs 0015-0016, receiving communication data (new message, new draft, etc.); user starting a draft message by identifying one or two other users; paragraph 0027, proposing features at user device, including user interface elements associated with proposed features, the proposed features are selectable by the user to cause an action at the communication platform and may include a recommendation to add another user as a recipient for a draft message, invite another user to join a channel, a user interface selectable to cause an invitation to be transmitted, etc.; i.e. the user, at the user device, may transmit one or more data structures encoding communications to the communication platform, such as a completed communication message, a draft communication message, a selection of a type of communication to be transmitted from a set of recommended communications (such as an invitation to be sent to another user, a request to join a channel, or an update to a draft message to include a suggested user)); and
the at least one communication is to a selected user, based on an embedding space, that satisfies the condition (e.g. paragraph 0018, selection of nearest neighbors based in part on distance; paragraph 0084, weights between nodes (users and channels, etc.) have associated weights; paragraph 0100, Fig. 3 step 322, computing similarity between the first embedding and other embeddings in the data structure; paragraph 0101, operation 322 in response to a request received from an API; request generated based on activity such as user joining channel, starting draft message, etc.; may comprise identifying the representation based on representation type or specified features, including based on/specified by the request, such as where a user joins a channel and the request specifies a portion of the channel-to-user embedding/representation for the channel that the user just joined, such as to identify users that interact similarity with the channel or channels similar to the user’s pattern of use; paragraph 0102, determining similarity between embeddings using distance between the embeddings in the embedding space; paragraph 0104, recommendations presented to user based on top n candidates, including user selectable recommendations to invite user to join another channel, add recipient to draft message, etc.; paragraph 0118, determining nearest n number of neighboring embeddings in the embedding space; paragraph 0119, determination/identification further based on associated probabilities; paragraph 0120, ranking candidates according to different target metrics; paragraph 0121, average or weighted average of probabilities; i.e. a portion of the graph data structure including the channels/channel nodes may be identified, such as based on a corresponding request, where the request serves as the condition applied to select/identify the portion including the nodes, and where the identification of the portion of the graph data also includes disregarding the remaining portions of the graph data; the system calculates a set of nearest features/nodes/embeddings based on distance between them, further weighted/ranked according to some additional weight/probability/metric).
Mauer does not explicitly disclose receive, from the remote system, a confirmation that the at least one communication was sent. However, Moore teaches receive, from the remote system, a confirmation that the at least one communication was sent (e.g. paragraph 0008, monitoring structured messages, determining average metric; when average metric reaches threshold, generating and sending further message that relates to said threshold being passed, such as time taken to respond to structured message; paragraph 0059, Fig. 3 is UI as would be seen by administrator and includes a Messages tab which includes messages sent, and a Reports tab, which shows analytical data based on messages; paragraph 0066, Fig. 9, describing display of message analytics according to type of message, including numbers of messages sent per type of message; i.e. once the message is sent, one or more indications that this has occurred will be shown at the user/administrator device, such as where the sent messages would be included within a messages tab of the administrator interface, or where the sending of the message would be reflected in message analytics displays which are based at least in part on the sent message (such as a message regarding a threshold being met with respect to a set of messages that includes the sent message, or the sent message being reflected in respective data analytics for the type of message in the user interface)).
In addition, assuming arguendo that Mauer does not explicitly disclose transmit, to the remote system, a data structure encoding at least one communication, Moore teaches transmit, to the remote system, a data structure encoding at least one communication (e.g. paragraph 0007, receiving definition of schema that includes message type and one or more required content fields; paragraph 0039, administrator defining message parameters; defining particular type of structured message; adding fields to schema for the message type; paragraph 0068, receiving definition for at least one schema for a particular type of structured message; paragraph 0072, system configurable so that administrator can define structure of the messages).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention having the teachings of Mauer and Moore in front of him to have modified the teachings of Mauer (directed to embeddings-based discovery and exposure of communication platform features), to incorporate the teachings of Moore (directed to structured messaging) to include the capability to provide, to the administrator, an indication of the message being sent, such as by showing the message as a sent message in a corresponding portion of the administrator user interface, or reflecting the message as sent by including it in a statistical count of messages sent in a message analytics display. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to perform such a modification in order to provide more advanced messaging solutions than services that only provide secure messaging as described in Moore (paragraph 0006).
With respect to claim 16, Mauer in view of Moore teaches all of the limitations of claim 15 as previously discussed, and Mauer teaches wherein the registration message includes a set of credentials associated with the event information (e.g. paragraph 0035, groups of users defined by group identifiers/common access credentials; paragraphs 0041-0042, host communication application of communication platform interacting with client computing devices via APIs; application 118 enabling user devices to interact with servers and access communication services; paragraph 0050, indicating that communication data 130 includes data indicative of interaction patterns between users and channels, etc. within the communication platform; paragraph 0055, APIs of applications given permissions to receive communication data, allowing the application to take actions outside of the communication platform or within the communication platform that are related to communication data; paragraph 0058, permissions data associated with permissions of individual users indicating which users can communicate directly with other users, which channels user is permitted to access, restrictions on individual channels, etc.; permissions support communication platform by maintaining security for limiting access to a defined group of users, such as users defined by common access credentials, etc.; paragraph 0087, normalizing weights associated with edges/interactions based on other interactions including interactions across a subset of users having a same identifier, same permission level, same team identifier, etc.; i.e. access to information on the system, such as communication data, interaction data, etc., is based on user/API/application credentials and permissions, such that the communication platform servers providing/granting the appropriate access permissions for a user, application, or API which is outside of the communication platform (or by an API within the communication platform but on a server which is remote from the server hosting the communication data) to access the communication data, interaction data, etc. is analogous to transmitting, to a remote system, a registration message authorizing the remote system to access event information, where the registration message includes a set of associated credentials).
With respect to claim 17, Mauer in view of Moore teaches all of the limitations of claim 15 as previously discussed, and Mauer further teaches wherein the indication of the condition includes a selection of the condition from a plurality of candidate conditions (e.g. paragraph 0015, API receiving request to provide candidate feature from another component of the communication platform; paragraphs 0018-0019, identifying graph embeddings associated with the request; number specified by request, which may be based on type of the request, etc.; paragraph 0045, request made by API to identify/reference items in datastore 128 (e.g. communication data, embeddings, etc.); paragraph 0065, request associated with subset of candidate generation components; request generated by search query; request based on user joining channel, etc.; paragraph 0101, request received from an API; representation type or specified features, based on/specified by the request, such as where a user joins a channel and the request specifies a portion of the channel-to-user embedding/representation for the channel that the user just joined, such as to identify users that interact similarity with the channel or channels similar to the user’s pattern of use; i.e. a portion of the graph data structure including the channels/channel nodes may be identified, such as based on a corresponding request, where the request serves as the condition applied to select/identify the portion including the nodes; i.e. receiving a request, including from a remote system (such as a user device, external application/API, or API hosted on a server which is remote from the server hosting the communication data), where the content or context of the request explicitly or implicitly indicates a condition associated with the request (such a request for specific items in a datastore, a request based on/comprising a specific query, etc., but also including requests which are based on a type of user interaction such as joining a channel, drafting a message, etc.); given that a wide variety of different types of actions may provide the basis for the request, such as drafting a new message, a user joining a channel, providing an explicit search query, etc., and each of these different actions is associated with different potential conditions for identifying relevant graph embeddings, each different type of request is representative of an associated set of candidate conditions, selection to perform one of these actions is analogous to selecting at least one condition from a plurality of candidate conditions; in addition, where the action explicitly request certain data out of a set of possible data, such as a query action, this is also analogous to a selection of a condition (as specified in the query) from a plurality of candidate conditions (those potential query terms/conditions which are not specified in the query))
With respect to claim 18, Mauer in view of Moore teaches all of the limitations of claim 15 as previously discussed, and Moore further teaches wherein the confirmation indicates the selected user (e.g. paragraph 0059, Fig. 3 is UI as would be seen by administrator and includes a Messages tab which includes messages sent, and a Reports tab, which shows analytical data based on messages; paragraph 0063, Fig. 6, message being drafted includes addressee 170; paragraph 0066, Fig. 9, describing display of message analytics according to type of message, including numbers of messages sent per type of message; i.e. once the message is sent, one or more indications that this has occurred will be shown at the user/administrator device, such as where the sent messages would be included within a messages tab of the administrator interface; that is, displaying the sent message to the selected user within the messages portion of the user interface would include an indication of the selected user/user who the message was sent to, since the message itself includes an indication of this user/recipient (as shown in at least Fig. 6 of Moore); Examiner notes that, as cited above, Mauer also generally indicates the identity of the selected users in its various messages communications as the identity of the user to be invited to a channel, the identity of a user to be added as a recipient to a draft message, etc.).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention having the teachings of Mauer and Moore in front of him to have modified the teachings of Mauer (directed to embeddings-based discovery and exposure of communication platform features), to incorporate the teachings of Moore (directed to structured messaging) to include the capability to provide, to the administrator, an indication of the message being sent, such as by showing the message as a sent message in a corresponding portion of the administrator user interface, or reflecting the message as sent by including it in a statistical count of messages sent in a message analytics display. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to perform such a modification in order to provide more advanced messaging solutions than services that only provide secure messaging as described in Moore (paragraph 0006).
With respect to claim 19, Mauer in view of Moore teaches all of the limitations of claim 15 as previously discussed, and Moore further teaches wherein the one or more instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the device to: receive, from the remote system, an indication of an amount associated with transmission of the at least one communication (e.g. paragraph 0008, monitoring structured messages, determining average metric; when average metric reaches threshold, generating and sending further message that relates to said threshold being passed, such as time taken to respond to structured message; paragraph 0059, Fig. 3 is UI as would be seen by administrator and includes a Messages tab which includes messages sent, and a Reports tab, which shows analytical data based on messages; paragraph 0066, Fig. 9, describing display of message analytics according to type of message, including numbers of messages sent per type of message; i.e. once the message is sent, one or more indications of an amount associated with the output of the message will be shown at the administrator device, such as in message analytics displays which are based at least in part on the sent message (such as a message regarding a threshold being met with respect to a set of messages that includes the sent message, or the sent message being reflected in respective data analytics for the type of message in the user interface, including a total amount of the messages of the same type being sent, being received, being delayed, and associated statistical average amounts associated with the message type)).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention having the teachings of Mauer and Moore in front of him to have modified the teachings of Mauer (directed to embeddings-based discovery and exposure of communication platform features), to incorporate the teachings of Moore (directed to structured messaging) to include the capability to provide, to the administrator, an indication of an amount associated with sending the message, such as by showing various amounts for message analytics, including as a statistical count of messages sent in a message analytics display along with various other analytics based on the message being sent. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to perform such a modification in order to provide more advanced messaging solutions than services that only provide secure messaging as described in Moore (paragraph 0006).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mauer in view of Moore, further in view of Fritz et al. (US 10206079 B1).
With respect to claim 20, Mauer in view of Moore teaches all of the limitations of claim 15 as previously discussed. Mauer and Moore do not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the one or more instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the device to: transmit, to the remote system, an indication of a geographic area, wherein the confirmation is received based on the selected user being associated with the geographic area.
However, Fritz teaches wherein the one or more instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the device to: transmit, to the remote system, an indication of a geographic area, wherein the confirmation is received based on the selected user being associated with the geographic area (e.g. col. 15 lines 15-35, extracting from message object message payload information including identification of intended recipient, indication of geographic location associated with intended recipient, etc.; col. 17 lines 45-57, generating renderable object associated with message object, notification object, and indication of acceptance status; displaying to user important information such as what the request entailed, when, to whom, and how the notification was sent, and whether or not it can be determined whether the notification object was received; col. 18 lines 30-39, Fig. 4, user interface presented on mobile device, display associated with server, etc.; col. 18 lines 56-65, interface 400 includes set of selectable elements 402 associated with notification object and therefore related message object and request data object, each object 402 including a set of selectable element fields 404-410; col. 19 lines 4-19, each individual selectable element field 404-410 presents category of information related to notification object, including time at which message object was received by the system, geographic region associated with an intended recipient, depictions of whether notification was confirmed as received by the intended recipient, etc.; i.e. where the information regarding the message/notification may be transmitted to a device of a user/remote device for display within a user interface on that device, and is based on both information indicating that notification/message was received by the system and confirmed as received by the intended recipient, and also based on the user being associated with a geographic area (i.e. the content of the displayed information includes both a confirmation that the message was sent/received and an indication of geographical information, such that the confirmation itself is based on this information, and its receipt (i.e. as a confirmation including the geographic area) is also based on the user being associated with the geographic area)).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention having the teachings of Mauer, Moore, and Fritz in front of him to have modified the teachings of Mauer (directed to embeddings-based discovery and exposure of communication platform features) and Moore (directed to structured messaging), to incorporate the teachings of Fritz (directed to notification transmission and confirmation management) to include the capability to receive the confirmation that the message was sent/received, the confirmation including both identification of the recipient and an associated geographic area of the recipient, such that the receipt of the confirmation is based on the intended recipient (i.e. which can be a selected user as taught by Mauer) being associated with the geographic area. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to perform such a modification in order to allow for efficient communication across disparate and incompatible systems as described in Fritz (abstract).
It is noted that any citation to specific pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. “The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain,” In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting in re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (GCPA 1968)). Further, a reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art, including nonpreferred embodiments. Merck & Co, v. Biocraft Laboratories, 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert, denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989). See also Upsher-Smith Labs. v. Pamlab, LLC, 412 F,3d 1319, 1323, 75 USPQ2d 1213, 1215 (Fed. Cir, 2005): Celeritas Technologies Ltd. v. Rockwell International Corp., 150 F.3d 1354, 1361, 47 USPQ2d 1516, 1522-23 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEREMY L STANLEY whose telephone number is (469)295-9105. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM CST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Abdullah Al Kawsar, can be reached at telephone number (571) 270-3169. 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 Patent Center and the Private Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center or Private PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center and Private PAIR for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/JEREMY L STANLEY/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2127
Prosecution Insights