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 .
Status of Claims:
Claims 1-20 are pending in this Office Action.
Claims 1, 10, and 14 are amended.
Claims 1-20 are rejected. This rejection is FINAL.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 01/16/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is being considered if signed and initialed by the Examiner.
Previous Rejections Withdrawn
The 35 U.S.C. 112 rejection is withdrawn based on applicant’s amendment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed in the amendment filed 02/06/2026, have been fully considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejection. The reasons set forth below.
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.
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 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
Claims 1-7, 9-16, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rowny et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2016/0315900) in view of Moszczynski (U.S. Publication No. 2018/0176155).
As per claim 1, Rowny discloses a method comprising:
generating, by an electronic device, a message comprising content and an identifier (Rowny: paragraph 0006; generating an identified message that includes the message and at least a portion of the unique identifier…paragraph 0050; The message can also include a payload (content), such as text, images, video files, audio files, and/or other multimedia files);
transmitting the message to other electronic devices via a cellular messaging protocol (Rowny: figs. 1A and 1B, paragraph 0006; sending, by the computer system and to the client computing device, the identified message over a first communication channel…paragraph 0007; The first communication channel can be a public switched telephone network (PSTN)) and via an internet-based messaging protocol, wherein transmissions of the message via the cellular messaging protocol and the internet-based messaging protocol at least in part overlap in time (Rowny: figs. 1A and 1B, paragraph 0006; the identified message over a first communication channel and a second communication channel…paragraph 0007; the second communication channel can be an internet protocol (IP) network…paragraph 0070; the multi-channel messaging system 504 can simultaneously transmit over both the PSTN channel 520 and the IP channel 522 (i.e. overlap in time)).
However Rowny does not explicitly mention transmitting the message to a plurality of other electronic devices.
However Moszczynski teaches:
transmitting the message to a plurality of other electronic devices (Moszczynski: paragraph 0026; the list of recipients is read from a data store such as a database. In some embodiments, the list of recipients is received from a user…claim 1; sending to each recipient in the list of recipients the transformed message according to the selected channel).
Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in Moszczynski with the teachings as in Rowny. The motivation for doing so would have been for selecting delivery channels that allow the sender to remain channel-agnostic while nevertheless maximizing the information delivered to users while balancing number of recipients against the richness of the message (Moszczynski: paragraph 0012).
As per claim 2, the modified Rowny teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: before transmitting the message: identifying a first set of electronic devices from the plurality of other electronic devices that support the cellular messaging protocol and a second set of electronic devices from the plurality of other electronic devices that support the internet-based messaging protocol (Moszczynski: paragraph 0028; a channel is selected for each recipient user. In some embodiments, selecting the channel comprises reading a preferred channel from the user profile. In some embodiments, selecting the channel comprises selecting a channel capable of delivering the message… if the message contains an image, a channel is selected that supports images. In some embodiments, selecting the channel comprises determining the user's current availability via a channel…paragraph 0029; the message is transformed for delivery on the selected channel for each user).
The same motivation to combine as the independent claim applies here.
As per claim 3, the modified Rowny teaches the method of claim 2, wherein identifying the second set of electronic devices from the plurality of other electronic devices comprises querying a server associated with the internet-based messaging protocol with an identifier of another electronic device (Moszczynski: paragraph 0028; a channel such as a messaging platform may use queries to determine whether a user is currently active or idle on that channel. It will be appreciated that various messaging platform provide various platform-specific APIs that allow access to user status information such as last active time or last online time. In some embodiments, selecting the channel comprises determining the current bandwidth of a channel).
The same motivation to combine as the independent claim applies here.
As per claim 4, the modified Rowny teaches the method of claim 2, wherein transmitting the message includes transmitting the message via the internet-based messaging protocol and forgoing transmitting the message via the cellular messaging protocol for the second set, in response to the message including an attribute in a predetermined list of attributes (Moszczynski: paragraph 0019; various attributes of the channels are used to determine the order in which they are tried. For example, factors considered may include online status, stated preference, previous message delivery reports, known available channels, channel capability, and sender priority with respect to capability and connectivity. Multiple data points over time also allow the system to create a bandwidth profile of a given user, indicating a relationship between bandwidth and time).
The same motivation to combine as the independent claim applies here.
As per claim 5, the modified Rowny teaches the method of claim 2, wherein transmitting the message includes transmitting the message via the cellular messaging protocol and forgoing transmitting the message via the internet-based messaging protocol for the first set and the second set, in response to the message only including text (Moszczynski: paragraph 0018; each individual channel may have separate capacities. With reference to the above, for example, SMS supports only text and so alt text is sent in place of an image. It will also be appreciated that different channels provide capability detection, such that a channel may be pre-checked for its capabilities prior to sending a message).
The same motivation to combine as the independent claim applies here.
As per claim 6, the modified Rowny teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the message comprises the identifier in multiple portions of the message (Rowny: paragraph 0007; The unique identifier can include a recipient identifier for the client computing device that is to receive the message, a sender identifier for another client computing device that sent the message, and an interaction identifier that is unique to messages associated with the recipient identifier and the sender identifier. The recipient identifier and the sender identifier can be included in the message, and the interaction identifier can be added to the identified message as the at least a portion of the unique identifier).
As per claim 7, the modified Rowny teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the message further comprises an indication that the message is to be sent via the cellular messaging protocol and the internet-based messaging protocol, the indication being different than an indication that the message is to be sent via only the internet-based messaging protocol (Rowny: paragraph 0070; the multi-channel messaging system 504 can simultaneously transmit over both the PSTN channel 520 and the IP channel 522. See also Moszczynski: paragraph 0022; A sender may select a single channel 302, or may indicate a dynamic rule 303 to apply. In this example, the selectable rules include: send to each recipient by their preferred channel; send to each recipient by all available channels; or send to each recipient according to a prioritized list of channels).
The same motivation to combine as the independent claim applies here.
As per claim 9, the modified Rowny teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the cellular messaging protocol utilizes one or more cellular carrier devices for transmitting the message (Rowny: paragraph 0030; Outbound traffic transmitted over PSTN can be home-routed over particular servers to allow the “from” number to be rewritten to maintain consistency between messages sent over two different cellular networks using two different subscriber profiles. This can help avoid problems associated with delivering messages across multiple carrier networks while maintaining a consistent number. Home-routing PSTN-transmitted messages can allow users to seamlessly move between different carriers, which can increase the reach of messaging).
With respect to Claim 10, it is substantially similar to Claim 1 and is rejected in the same manner, the same art and reasoning applying. Further, Rowny also teaches an electronic device comprising: a processor (Rowny: paragraph 0078; Computing device 600 includes a processor 602).
Regarding claims 11-13, they are substantially similar to claims 2-4, respectively, and are rejected in the same manner, the same arts and reasoning applying.
With respect to Claim 14, it is substantially similar to Claim 1 and is rejected in the same manner, the same art and reasoning applying. Further, Rowny also teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform operations (Rowny: paragraphs 0086-0087; The memory 664 stores information within the computing device 650. The memory 664 can be implemented as one or more of a computer-readable medium or media, a volatile memory unit or units, or a non-volatile memory unit or units) comprising: deriving an identifier from the received message (Rowny: paragraph 0073; a reply message can be received by the recipient device 506 (542), which can cause the recipient device 506 to determine an identifier for the message (544) and to generate an identified reply message 546 that includes the identifier (546). For example, the multi-channel account management app 228 and/or the messaging app 230 on the client device 210 can determine an identifier for the received message); and providing the received message to a message thread in association with the identifier (Rowny: paragraphs 0073-0074; The multi-channel messaging system 504 can receive the reply message (550) and, if there is an identifier included in the message, can select the identifier in the reply message (552), use the identifier to determine whether the message is a duplicate (554), store the identifier in a local database/repository if the message is not a duplicate (556), can remove the identifier from the reply message (558), and can send the reply message (without the identifier) to the device 502 (560). For example, FIGS. 4C-D depict steps J-O (420-440) for transmitting such a reply message to the client device 422. The device 502 (which is acting as a recipient device in this instance) receives the reply message (with identifier having already been removed by the system 504) (562) and outputs the message (564)).
As per claim 15, the modified Rowny teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 14, wherein providing the received message to the message thread comprises: discarding the received message, in response to determining that the message thread includes a message that includes the identifier and was received via the internet-based messaging protocol (Rowny: paragraph 0072; the identified message may be delivered to the recipient device 506 more than once over the PSTN channel 520 and/or the IP channel 522. The database/repository of received messages can be referenced to determine whether the second instance is a duplicate. In response to determining that the second instance is a duplicate, the second instance of the message can be discarded (540). Discarding the second instance can include, for example, deleting the second instance of the message from the message database in the platform layer 226 before the messaging app 230 is alerted to second instance of the message, so as to avoid the second instance of the message being output multiple times by the messaging app 230).
As per claim 16, the modified Rowny teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 14, wherein providing the received message to the message thread comprises: replacing at least part of an existing message in the message thread with at least part of the received message, in response to determining that the message thread includes the existing message that includes the identifier and was received via the cellular messaging protocol (Rowny: paragraph 0011; generate a modified reply message that includes the reply message with at least a portion of the reply unique identifier removed; and send the modified reply message to the other computing device. The operations can further include receive, over the second communication channel, a second instance of the reply message; determine that the second instance of the reply message is a duplicate based on a comparison of a unique identifier in the second instance of the reply message with the repository of sent messages; and discard, in response to the determining, the second instance of the reply message).
As per claim 19, the modified Rowny teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 14, wherein the instructions cause the processor to perform operations further comprising: modifying at least part of an existing message in the message thread based on the received message, in response to determining that the existing message includes the identifier (Rowny: paragraph 0012; a modified message that includes the message with at least a portion of the unique identifier removed, and causing the modified message to be presented by the client computing device…claim 6; modified reply message that comprises the reply message with at least a portion of the reply unique identifier removed; and sending, by the computer system, the modified reply message to the other computing device…paragraph 0037; filter duplicate messages that are received over the multiple communication channels 106 and 108).
As per claim 20, the modified Rowny teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 14, wherein the instructions cause the processor to perform operations further comprising: in response to receiving the message via the internet-based messaging protocol, storing the message in a cache until the message is received via the cellular messaging protocol Rowny: paragraph 0036; in the first instance of receiving the message, the messaging subsystem 112 can strip the identifier out of the message, insert the message into a local cache of messages on the device 104, and can log the unique identifier for the message (e.g., ID alone, sender/recipient/ID triplet, ID/heuristics/sender triplet)…store the newly-received instance of the message but not present the message to a user).
Claims 8 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rowny et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2016/0315900), in view of Moszczynski (U.S. Publication No. 2018/0176155), and further in view of Stafford et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2023/0188485)
As per claim 8, the modified Rowny teaches the method of claim 1.
However the modified Rowny does not explicitly mention wherein the internet-based messaging protocol is end-to-end encrypted.
However Stafford teaches:
wherein the internet-based messaging protocol is end-to-end encrypted (Stafford: paragraph 0229; Core features of iMessage, available on all supported platforms, include sending text messages, images, videos, and documents; getting delivery and read statuses (read receipts); and end-to-end encryption so only the sender and recipient can read the messages, and no one else, including APPLE itself, can read them).
Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in Stafford with the teachings as in the modified Rowny. The motivation for doing so would have been for providing interoperability for Rich Communication Suite/Systems (RCS) messaging with RCS information sharing using plural channels and for secure communications (Stafford: paragraphs 0002 and 0129).
As per claim 17, the modified Rowny teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 14, wherein the instructions cause the processor to perform operations further comprising: receiving a second message via the cellular messaging protocol (Rowny: paragraph 0033; inbound transmission of a message (e.g., SMS, MMS, message sent via other messaging protocol(s)) across the multiple communication channels 106 and 108 to the computing device 104. The example message is transmitted by the computing device 102, such as through a PSTN or IP network connection that is being used by the computing device 102, and is routed to a multi-channel messaging system 110 that is associated with the computing device 104); and deriving an identifier from the second message by generating a hash based on one or more attributes of the received message (Hash will be taught later. Rowny: paragraph 0036; in the first instance of receiving the message, the messaging subsystem 112 can strip the identifier out of the message, insert the message into a local cache of messages on the device 104, and can log the unique identifier for the message (e.g., ID alone, sender/recipient/ID triplet, ID/heuristics/sender triplet)).
However the modified Rowny do not explicitly mention generating a hash.
However Stafford teaches:
generating a hash (Stafford: paragraph 0148; Keyed Hashing for Message Authentication Codes (HMAC), is a mechanism for message authentication using cryptographic hash functions. HMAC is used with any iterative cryptographic hash function, e.g., MD5, SHA-1, SHA-512, etc. in combination with a secret shared key. The cryptographic strength of HMAC depends on the properties of the underlying hash function).
Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in Stafford with the teachings as in the modified Rowny. The motivation for doing so would have been for providing interoperability for Rich Communication Suite/Systems (RCS) messaging with RCS information sharing using plural channels and for secure communications (Stafford: paragraphs 0002 and 0129).
As per claim 18, the modified Rowny teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 17, wherein deriving the identifier from the received message comprises: obtaining the identifier from a first portion of the received message (Rowny: paragraph 0074; The multi-channel messaging system 504 can receive the reply message (550) and, if there is an identifier included in the message, can select the identifier in the reply message (552)); and in response to the first portion of the received message not including the identifier, obtaining the identifier from a second portion of the received message (Rowny: paragraph 0075; The multi-channel messaging system 504 may receive a second instance of the reply message (566) and can use the identifier contained in the second instance of the reply message).
REMARKS
Applicant submitted arguments to overturn the rejection on 02/06/2026. The examiner maintains the rejections, see remarks below.
The applicant Argues:
Argument: Applicant argues that the cited references do not disclose or teach that “transmitting the message to a plurality of other electronic devices via a cellular messaging protocol and via an internet-based messaging protocol, wherein transmissions of the message via the cellular messaging protocol and the internet-based messaging protocol at least in part overlap in time” as recited in claim 1.
In response, the examiner respectfully submits: Applicant argues that Rowny does not teach transmitting the message to a plurality of other electronic devices and that Moszczynski does not teach the overlap in time. However, the rejection does not rely on either reference alone for the entire claimed limitation. Rowny is relied upon for teaching overlapping/simultaneous transmission of the message over both the PSTN channel and the IP channel, and Moszczynski is relied upon for teaching sending the message to each recipient in a list of recipients.
Thus, the combination of Rowny and Moszczynski teaches the overlapping dual-channel transmission and the plurality of recipients. Applicant’s arguments improperly attack the references individually rather than addressing the combined teachings of the references.
It would have been obvious to modify Rowny’s multi-channel messaging system to send the message to each recipient in a recipient list, as taught by Moszczynski, in order to deliver the message to multiple intended recipients using available communication channels.
Accordingly, the combination of Rowny and Moszczynski teaches or suggests transmitting the message to a plurality of other electronic devices via both a cellular/PSTN channel and an internet-based/IP channel, wherein the transmissions at least partially overlap in time. Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KARINA J. GARCIA-CHING whose telephone number is (571)270-7159. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Wednesday (9:00 AM - 5:00 PM).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Vivek Srivastava can be reached at (571) 272-7304. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KARINA J GARCIA-CHING/Examiner, Art Unit 2449
/VIVEK SRIVASTAVA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2449
Prosecution Insights