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
This action is in reply to the amendment filed on 11/05/2025.
Claims 1, 9, 11-15, and 20 have been amended and are hereby entered.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
This action is made FINAL.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 2 and 7, filed 11/05/2025, with respect to the specification objections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The specification objections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-16, filed 11/05/2025, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections of claims 1-20 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections of claims 1-20 have been maintained.
Applicant first argues on pages 7-8, after discussing the 2019 Guidance, that the claims allegedly recite an invention which cannot be performed manually and an invention that is allegedly more than a method of organizing human activity. Applicant argues that there is no manual process for generating recommended modes of communication and ranking information. Applicant then, after discussing MPEP 2106.04 and McRO, argues on pages 8-10 that the Office is over generalizing the claimed invention and only provides conclusory statements that the claimed invention falls within at least one of the enumerated judicial exceptions.
Examiner notes here that Applicant’s citation of MPEP 2106.04(a) at the top of page 9 of Remarks does not reflect the current version of the MPEP. MPEP 2106.04(a) recites “Examiners should determine whether a claim recites an abstract idea by (1) identifying the specific limitation(s) in the claim under examination that the examiner believes recites an abstract idea, and (2) determining whether the identified limitations(s) fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas listed above” (emphasis added) in contrast to Applicant’s citation reciting “…(2) comparing the claimed concept to the concepts previously identified as abstract ideas by the courts to determine if it is similar.”
Applicant then argues on pages 10-11 of Remarks that the limitations of “automatically normalizing participant data to a format that is digestible by the data service module, analyzing the normalized data and user preference information, and generating a ranking of recommended types of electronic communication based on the analysis cannot practically be performed in the mind because the mind is not capable of performing the claimed limitations”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s above arguments that the claimed invention does not fall into at least one of the enumerated judicial exceptions. Regarding the ability of the claims to be performed in the human mind, Examiner notes that the limitation of “normalizing the historical communication information for the participating user by segmenting the historical communication information into blocks of data based on a type of the historical communication information to provide normalized participating user information” in claim 1 covers grouping historical communication information into time windows and type of communication. See Applicant’s disclosure [0016]-[0018], particularly [0018] “the historical data collected during step 106 can be normalized. During this process, time can be parsed or segmented into, for example, blocks of time, such as morning and afternoon, or 15 minute segments (e.g., 2 pm to 2:15 pm), 30 minute segments, 1 hour segments, two hour segments, or the like. Location information can be segmented into segments, such as home, work, in transit, or the like”. It is within the capability of a human mind to collect and review historical communication information like call logs, email history, or other data as described in [0016] of the disclosure and sort the historical information into blocks of time like those communications that occurred in the morning or those that occurred in the evening. Even if one were to argue that the volume of communications data were so large that one could not keep track of the normalized time blocks within their mind, MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III.B. states “If a claim recites a limitation that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper, the limitation falls within the mental processes grouping, and the claim recites an abstract idea… The use of a physical aid (e.g., pencil and paper or a slide rule) to help perform a mental step (e.g., a mathematical calculation) does not negate the mental nature of the limitation, but simply accounts for variations in memory capacity from one person to another.” Examiner notes that the “format digestible by the data service module” is not recited in the claims, and a technical explanation as to how such a format would be beyond the capability of a human with pen and paper does not appear to be provided in Applicant’s disclosure. Therefore, a human creating written lists of communication events that occurred within each normalized time block from raw historical communication information falls within a Mental Process.
Turning to the limitation of: “analyzing the normalized participating user information and the user preference information and generating ranking information comprising recommended modes of communication for the participating user based on the analysis”, upon creation of the normalized user information discussed above, a human could mentally review the collected user preference information and normalized user information and make a judgement as to which communication mode(s) to recommend. The analysis of the normalized user information recited in the claims covers analysis that can be performed by a human with pen and paper (simple counts of each mode in a time block, counts the number of communications initiated in each mode in a time block, total amount of time spent communicating in each mode in a time block, etc.), and the analysis of the normalized user information and the preference information similarly covers analysis that falls within the ability of a human using pen and paper (equally weighting observed preference from normalized information and stated user preference rankings, removing communication modes from a ranking of normalized user information if a user has stated they do not prefer the communication modes, etc.).
Regarding the communication of the recommended modes to an initiating user and the usage of the data collection and normalization engine, database, and data service module, MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III.C. states “examiners should review the specification to determine if the claimed invention is described as a concept that is performed in the human mind and applicant is merely claiming that concept performed 1) on a generic computer, or 2) in a computer environment, or 3) is merely using a computer as a tool to perform the concept. In these situations, the claim is considered to recite a mental process”. In the case of these computer elements, they are merely being used as tools to perform the mental processes discussed above. Furthermore, the discussion of these features in disclosure [0030]-[0038] indicate that the features include generic computing components that are performing the claimed processes.
Accordingly, the limitations argued by Applicant, and the claimed limitations as a whole, fall under a Mental Process because they recite a process within the capabilities of a human with a pen and paper.
While Applicant does not appear to separately argue that the claims do not recite a method of organizing human activity, Examiner notes that the claims are determining the best communication for a first user to use to contact a second user based on past behavior of the second user. The claimed limitations are therefore at least managing the first user’s behavior by recommending which communication method the first user should use and managing interactions between the first and second users by steering the interactions through particular recommended channels. Accordingly, the claimed limitations fall under Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity as well as Mental Processes. The claims recite a judicial exception at Step 2A Prong One.
Next, Applicant argues on pages 11-14 of Remarks that the claimed invention contains additional elements that reflect an improvement to the functioning of a computer. Applicant cites again to the 2019 Guidance and cites to Enfish, Finjan, and Core Wireless as examples of claims providing an improvement to the functioning of a computer. Applicant argues that the claimed limitations are similar to the Enfish, Finjan, and Core Wireless in that they are allegedly directed to a specific improvement in computer functionality. Specifically, Applicant argues that the limitations of “automatically normalizing participant data to a format that is digestible by the data service module, analyzing the normalized data and user preference information, and generating a ranking of recommended types of electronic communication based on the analysis”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As discussed above, the normalization of communication data covers grouping communications together based on time of day and the type of communication being performed. The “format digestible by the data service module” is not recited in the claims, and formatting of a type beyond what a human with pen and paper would be capable of normalizing to does not appear to be discussed in the specification as filed. The analysis of the normalized data and user preferences to generate a ranking of recommended types of communication similarly can be performed by a human with a pen and paper and also falls within Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. Therefore, the performance of these processes on a generic computer does not amount to an improvement to the functioning of a computer. See MPEP 2106.05(a) I. for mere automation of manual processes not being sufficient to show an improvement in computer functionality. While the analysis and ranking of recommended communication modes for user may improve the abstract idea of communication between users by suggesting more preferable means of communication, MPEP 2106.05(a) II. states “it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology”.
Regarding the analogousness to Enfish, Finjan, and Core Wireless, the claimed invention is not analogous to any of these examples. Enfish was directed to the improvement of a self-referential table itself, something rooted in computing technology. Similarly, Finjan was directed to an improvement in virus scanning, another improvement rooted in computer technology. With Core Wireless, the improvement was to the user interface itself, which again is necessarily rooted in computer technology. In contrast, the claimed invention is directed to reviewing and analyzing communication histories to recommend a communication mode to a user. Providing such a recommendation is not rooted in technology, as communication histories need not be kept digitally. While the cited examples improved the functioning of a computer, the claimed invention does not, and instead applies an abstract idea using generic computing components.
Finally, MPEP 2106.05(a) states “If it is asserted that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement”. Instead of a technical problem being presented in the specification, paragraphs [0002]-[0004] of the specification present a problem in the abstract idea itself: a user’s determination of which communication method to choose (see [0003] “With prior systems and methods, a user may simply choose a mode of communication and attempt to initiate an electronic communication, with no deference to preferred modes of communication of the other participants in the communication”). Therefore, the disclosure as filed indicates that the problem being solved is a problem in the abstract idea of the interaction between the communicating user; namely, the problem of a user initiating communication via an undesired/less desired method to the other user. Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments at Step 2A Prong Two that the claimed invention amounts to an improvement in the functioning of a computer are not persuasive.
Applicant then argues on pages 14-16 of Remarks that the amended claims provide an inventive concept. After citing the 2019 guidance, Applicant argues that the claimed limitations are eligible for similar reasoning as Examples 47 and 42. Applicant particularly argues that “The current specification very specifically describes the technical problem and the technical improvement, and Applicant includes such technical improvement into the claimed invention (e.g., automatically normalizing participant data to a format that is digestible by the data service module, analyzing the normalized data and user preference information, and generating a ranking of recommended types of electronic communication based on the analysis)” on Page 15 of Remarks. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As discussed above, the problem presented in the specification [0002]-[0004] is that of a user choosing which mode to initiate communication with another person (a problem in the abstract idea itself). This problem is not analogous with Example 47 enhancing network security by dropping potentially malicious packets. Furthermore, the analogy that Applicant appears to be making with the alleged “normalizing participant data to a format that is digestible by the data service module” and the medical data formatting of Example 42 is not persuasive, as Applicant’s disclosure does not recite a technical problem with the data formatting of communication history information. While the data service module is configured to receive and analyze the normalized data, formatting ad/or conversion problems are not mentioned in Applicant’s disclosure. The normalization of data, as discussed above, does not include technical changes, but instead grouping instances of communication based on time of day, location, etc. Therefore, while Applicant is arguing that a technical problem are “very specifically” described, the problem described in the specification appears to be one of the judicial exception. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments that the claimed invention is analogous to Examples 42 and 47 are not persuasive.
As discussed regarding Step 2A Prong Two above, the claimed invention does not recite an improvement to the functioning of a computer and instead merely applies a judicial exception to generic computing components. Per MPEP 2106.05(f), “Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.” Accordingly, the claimed invention does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions at Step 2B. Applicant’s arguments regarding the eligibility of the claimed invention are not persuasive, and the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections have been maintained.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 16-19, filed 11/05/2025, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) rejections of claims 1-7, 11, 13, and 15-18, as well as the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of claims 8-10, 12, 14, and 19-20 have been fully considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. While the 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) rejections using the Brenna reference are no longer appropriate, claims 1-20 still stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Specifically, O'Shaughnessy et al. (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2009/0274286, hereafter known as O'Shaughnessy) and Céret et al. (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2017/0053209, hereafter known as Céret) are used to teach the limitations argued by Applicant regarding independent claims 1 and 15 on pages 17-18 of Remarks, and regarding independent claim 20 on page 19.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because the claim limitations use a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are:
“a data collection and normalization engine” in claims 1, 15, 16, and 20
“a data service module” in claims 1, 7, 15, 17, and 20
“a recommendation engine” in claims 10, 15, and 18
“a sentiment analysis engine” in claim 19
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Regarding the structure in the specification, structure can be found in paragraphs [0031]-[0033] and [0035]-[0038].
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite recommending a method of communication to an initiating user to contact a participating user.
As an initial matter, claims 1-14 fall into at least the process category of statutory subject matter. Claims 15-19 fall into at least the machine category of statutory subject matter. Finally, claim 20 falls into at least the process category of statutory subject matter. Therefore, all claims fall into at least one of the statutory categories. Eligibility analysis proceeds to Step 2A.
In claim 1, the limitation of “An electronic communication method comprising the steps of: collecting historical communication information for a participating user”, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “electronic communication method,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. Similarly, the limitations of “using a data collection and normalization engine, normalizing the historical communication information for the participating user by segmenting the historical communication information into blocks of data based on a type of the historical communication information to provide normalized participating user information; collecting user preference information for the participating user; storing the normalized participating user information in a database; storing the user preference information for the participating user in the database; using a data service module, analyzing the normalized participating user information and the user preference information and generating ranking information comprising recommended modes of communication for the participating user based on the analysis; and sending one or more recommended modes of communication to an initiating user based on the ranking information”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Additionally, claim 1 recites the concept of recommending a method of communication to an initiating user to contact a participating user which is a certain method of organizing human activity including Managing Personal Behavior or Relationships or Interactions Between People. A communication method comprising the steps of: collecting historical communication information for a participating user; normalizing the historical communication information for the participating user by segmenting the historical communication information into blocks of data based on a type of the historical communication information to provide normalized participating user information; collecting user preference information for the participating user; storing the normalized participating user information; storing the user preference information for the participating user; analyzing the normalized participating user information and the user preference information and generating ranking information comprising recommended modes of communication for the participating user based on the analysis; and sending one or more recommended modes of communication to an initiating user based on the ranking information all, as a whole, fall under the category of Managing Personal Behavior or Relationships or Interactions Between People. The claim falls into the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Mere recitation of generic computer components does not remove the claim from this grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of the method being “electronic”, a data collection and normalization engine, a database, and a data service module. The recited additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The combination of these additional elements is also no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of the method being “electronic”, a data collection and normalization engine, a database, and a data service module amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The combination of these additional elements is also no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 2-8 further limit the abstract idea of claim 1 without adding any new additional elements. Therefore, by the analysis of claim 1 above these claims, individually and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims are not patent eligible.
Claim 9 further limits the abstract idea of claim 8 while introducing the additional element of automatically connecting an initiating user device to a communication with a participant user device. The claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the element of automatically connecting an initiating user device to a communication with a participant user device is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Adding this new additional element into the additional elements from claim 8 still amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The claim also does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 10 further limits the abstract idea of claim 1 while introducing the additional element of a recommendation engine. The claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the element of a recommendation engine is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Adding this new additional element into the additional elements from claim 1 still amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The claim also does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 11 further limits the abstract idea of claim 1 while introducing the additional elements of an initiating user device and a participating user device. The claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the elements of an initiating user device and a participating user device are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Adding these new additional elements into the additional elements from claim 1 still amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The claim also does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 12 further limits the abstract idea of claim 11 while introducing the additional element of automatically connecting an initiating user device to a communication with a participant user device. The claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the element of automatically connecting an initiating user device to a communication with a participant user device is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Adding this new additional element into the additional elements from claim 11 still amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The claim also does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 13-14 further limit the abstract idea of claim 1 without adding any new additional elements. Therefore, by the analysis of claim 1 above these claims, individually and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims are not patent eligible.
In claim 15, the limitation of “An electronic communication system comprising: a data collection and normalization engine configured to receive historical participant user communication information and to normalize the historical participant user communication information by segmenting the historical participant user communication information into blocks of data based on a type of the historical participant user communication information to provide normalized participating user information”, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “electronic communication system” and “a data collection and normalization engine,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. Similarly, the limitations of “a database comprising the normalized participating user information and participant user preference information; a data service module configured to receive and analyze the normalized participating user information and to generate ranking of recommended modes of communication information for the participating user based on the analysis of the normalized participating user information; and a recommendation engine to receive the ranking of recommended modes of communication information and the participant user preference information and to provide a recommended mode of communication to an initiating user device”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Additionally, claim 15 recites the concept of recommending a method of communication to an initiating user to contact a participating user which is a certain method of organizing human activity including Managing Personal Behavior or Relationships or Interactions Between People. Receive historical participant user communication information and to normalize the historical participant user communication information by segmenting the historical participant user communication information into blocks of data based on a type of the historical participant user communication information to provide normalized participating user information; the normalized participating user information and participant user preference information; receive and analyze the normalized participating user information and to generate ranking of recommended modes of communication information for the participating user based on the analysis of the normalized participating user information; and receive the ranking of recommended modes of communication information and the participant user preference information and to provide a recommended mode of communication to an initiating user all, as a whole, fall under the category of Managing Personal Behavior or Relationships or Interactions Between People. The claim falls into the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Mere recitation of generic computer components does not remove the claim from this grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of an electronic communication system, a data collection and normalization engine, a database, a data service module, a recommendation engine, and an initiating user device. The recited additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The combination of these additional elements is also no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of an electronic communication system, a data collection and normalization engine, a database, a data service module, a recommendation engine, and an initiating user device amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The combination of these additional elements is also no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 16 further limits the abstract idea of claim 15 while introducing the additional element of a communication server. The claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the element of a communication server is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Adding this new additional element into the additional elements from claim 15 still amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The claim also does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 17 further limits the abstract idea of claim 15 while introducing the additional element of a communication server. The claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the element of a communication server is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Adding this new additional element into the additional elements from claim 15 still amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The claim also does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 18 further limits the abstract idea of claim 15 while introducing the additional element of a communication server. The claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the element of a communication server is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Adding this new additional element into the additional elements from claim 15 still amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The claim also does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 19 further limits the abstract idea of claim 15 while introducing the additional element of a sentiment analysis engine. The claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the element of a sentiment analysis engine is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Adding this new additional element into the additional elements from claim 15 still amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The claim also does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
In claim 20, the limitation of “An electronic communication method comprising: collecting communication information for a participating user, the communication information comprising a plurality of modes of communication and one or more types of communication for each mode”, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “electronic communication method,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. Similarly, the limitations of “using a data collection and normalization engine, normalizing the communication information for the participating user by segmenting the historical communication information into blocks of data based on a type of the historical communication information to provide normalized participating user information; collecting user preference information for the participating user; storing the normalized user information in a database; storing the user preference information in the database; using a data service module, analyzing the normalized participating user information and generating ranking information of recommended modes of communication for the participating user and ranking information of recommended types of communication for the participating user based on the analysis; comparing the ranking information of recommended modes of communication and the ranking information of recommended types of communication for the participating user to the preference information; and sending a recommended mode and type of communication to an initiating user device”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Additionally, claim 20 recites the concept of recommending a method of communication to an initiating user to contact a participating user which is a certain method of organizing human activity including Managing Personal Behavior or Relationships or Interactions Between People. A communication method comprising: collecting communication information for a participating user, the communication information comprising a plurality of modes of communication and one or more types of communication for each mode; normalizing the communication information for the participating user by segmenting the historical communication information into blocks of data based on a type of the historical communication information to provide normalized participating user information; collecting user preference information for the participating user; storing the normalized user information; storing the user preference information; analyzing the normalized participating user information and generating ranking information of recommended modes of communication for the participating user and ranking information of recommended types of communication for the participating user based on the analysis; comparing the ranking information of recommended modes of communication and the ranking information of recommended types of communication for the participating user to the preference information; and sending a recommended mode and type of communication to an initiating user all, as a whole, fall under the category of Managing Personal Behavior or Relationships or Interactions Between People. The claim falls into the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Mere recitation of generic computer components does not remove the claim from this grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of the method being “electronic”, a data collection and normalization engine, a database, a data service module, and an initiating user device. The recited additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The combination of these additional elements is also no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of the method being “electronic”, a data collection and normalization engine, a database, a data service module, and an initiating user device amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The combination of these additional elements is also no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-7, 10-11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brenna et al. (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2024/0037674, hereafter known as Brenna) in view of O'Shaughnessy et al. (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2009/0274286, hereafter known as O'Shaughnessy) and Céret et al. (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2017/0053209, hereafter known as Céret).
Regarding claim 1, Brenna teaches:
An electronic communication method comprising the steps of (see Fig. 6 and [0075]-[0079] for overall method of electronic communication)
collecting historical communication information for a participating user (see [0075] "The operations 600 includes a tracking operation 602 that tracks communication activity of a first user conducted in association with a first communication account to a communication application (e.g., emails, chats, calls, meetings)" and [0028]-[0033] for the tracking of the sender, recipient, and modes of each communication. See Fig. 3 and [0053]-[0058] for the communication tracker collecting data on the content of the messages)
using a data collection and normalization engine, normalizing the historical communication information for the participating user (see [0030] "the communication tracker 114 keeps a counter in association with each different mode of communication utilized within a same participant group (e.g., sender/recipient). For example, a table 120 indicates that John has called Paul 12 times, text-chatted with Paul 18 different times, and emailed Paul three times since the start of corresponding interval represented by the illustrated table within the communication tracker 114" for normalizing the historical communication into counter data tallying the number of communications made using the communication tracker, which Examiner is interpreting as a data collection and normalization engine)
collecting user preference information for the participating user (see Fig. 2 and [0038] "Configurable communication mode preferences 204 allow a user to set a preferred communication mode (e.g., voice, chat email) for different types of contacts (e.g., close contacts, new contacts, org-external contacts, org-internal contacts, all contacts, or “other”). Other implementations may allow the user to specify an ordered list of preferred communication modes, either to use as a default across all contacts or for use in association with certain types of contacts (e.g., “ContactType” as shown)")
storing the normalized participating user information in a database (see [0030] "the communication tracker 114 keeps a counter in association with each different mode of communication utilized within a same participant group (e.g., sender/recipient)" and [0045] "The system 300 includes a communication tracker 306 and an inference extractor 308 that perform at least some functions the same or similar to like-named components described with respect to FIG. 1" and [0065] "some of the illustrated software components are executed remotely, such as at one or more a cloud-based application servers" for storing the normalized information on application servers)
storing the user preference information for the participating user in the database (see [0024] "each user profile within the user profile datastore 112 includes communication preference, such as information relating to a user's preferred mode of communication and/or the specific content preferences. Updates to profile data within the user profile datastore 112 are affected by “pushing” profile data collected on user devices to the user profile datastore. For example, one or more of the communication application(s) 104 on the personal device 102 may update local user profile data 116 for John, such as responsive to alterations to profile settings that John manually configures or responsive to preference inferences extracted by the communication system 100" and [0067] "updated information within the user profile communication preferences 312 may be transmitted to a global user profile datastore (e.g., the user profile datastore 112 of FIG. 1)" and [0065] "some of the illustrated software components are executed remotely, such as at one or more a cloud-based application servers" for storing the user preference information on the application servers)
using a data service module, analyzing the normalized participating user information (see inference extractor 118 and 308 for the data service module. See [0051]-[0052] for the inference extractor accessing counts of communication modes and determining communication mode preferences. See [0030] "From this tracked information, the inference extractor 118 may infer that John's communication preferences for correspondence with Paul are, in descending order of preference: chat, voice, and email. Notably, this trend may be true across most or all of John's contacts. If so, a communication mode preference may be updated within the local user profile data 116 to indicate that, as a default, John's mode of communication preferences are, in descending order: chat, voice, and email regardless of sender identity" for accessing normalized communication information to generating ranking of recommended modes of communication)
and sending one or more recommended modes of communication to an initiating user based on the ranking information (see [0079] "A presentation operation 610 presents, on a user interface of the communication application, the inferred communication preference stored within a select one of the populated contact cards. For example, the inferred communication for a contact card of a first user is presented to a second user when the second user hovers over or clicks on the contact card of the first user" and Fig. 5 and [0073] "When John interacts with UI content corresponding to Paul's contact card 514 (e.g., a graphic including Paul's name, image, avatar), the contact card 514 is displayed. In this case, Paul's communication preferences are presented in a text box 516 that reads “Preferred communication method: Email, Chat, Voice calls, Video Meetings,” and the order is indicative of a preference from most preferred to least preferred")
While Brenna teaches normalizing historical communication data by determining counts of communication modes and participants in a communication session as discussed above, Brenna does not explicitly teach normalizing the historical communication information by segmenting the communication information into blocks based on the type of the historical communication information. Furthermore, while Brenna teaches receiving and storing user configurable communication preferences, Brenna does not explicitly teach analyzing the normalized participating user data along with the user configurable communication preferences to generate a ranking of communication modes. O'Shaughnessy teaches:
using a data collection and normalization engine, normalizing the historical communication information for the participating user by segmenting the historical communication information into blocks of data based on a type of the historical communication information to provide normalized participating user information (see Fig. 6 and [0090]-[0092] “At step 600, an initial mode is selected and at step 601 the call history data is analyzed for that particular selected mode to determine within a window of .+-.N minutes from the current time how many calls were made using the mode, covering a number of days specified by variable D…At step 602, this count is divided by D to give a short term average number of calls per day…A simple process finds a count for a larger period of H days and a long term average number of calls per day is calculated” and [0097] “Step 611 then determines whether there are further modes to be processed and if so the next mode is selected at step 613 and the process recommences from 601” for segmenting the communication data into blocks within N minutes of the current time over a plurality of days. See [0038] for different communication types including landline telephone, mobile telephone, push to talk telephone communication, etc. In combination with Brenna, the communication information is segmented into the time blocks as part of the normalization. See Applicant’s disclosure [0018] for grouping data into blocks of time as normalizing the data)
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of segmenting the historical user communication data into time blocks as part of the normalization of historical communication data of O'Shaughnessy to the system of Brenna would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of O'Shaughnessy to the teaching of Brenna would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such segmenting the historical user communication data into time blocks as part of the normalization of historical communication data. Further, applying segmenting the historical user communication data into time blocks as part of the normalization of historical communication data to Brenna would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow more efficient and accurate communication mode recommendations. By evaluating the communication history in blocks of time surrounding the current time, the combined system can more accurately determine communication preferences that may be time dependent. By looking at the communication mode preferences over blocks of time, the combined system can more accurately track and consider scheduling and behavior patterns related to communication mode preferences, resulting in more accurate rankings and suggestions to users.
The combination of Brenna and O'Shaughnessy still does not explicitly teach analyzing both the normalized participating user information and the user preference information to generate the ranking information of recommended communication modes. Céret teaches analyzing the normalized participating user information and the user preference information (see [0078]-[0079] and Equation 1 for the combining inferred preference (in the combination of Brenna and O'Shaughnessy, the normalized participating user information) and stated preference (in the combination of Brenna and O'Shaughnessy, the user-configured preference information) to generate a global/overall preference value. In combination with Brenna and O'Shaughnessy, the normalized user communication information and stated preferences would be combined to generate ranked preference values for different modes of communication).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the weighting of stated and inferred preferences to arrive at a global/overall preference value of Céret to the combination of Brenna and O'Shaughnessy. As Céret states in [0125] “The way the data are aggregated may depend on the estimated validity of the values. For instance, if the user stated his goals recently, the stated values are the most valid ones. But if the declaration has been made a long time ago and if there is relevant history since this declaration, the inferred goals, calculated from this history, are likely to be more valid than the declaration”. By considering the recency of the stated preferences of the user in Brenna, the combined system of Brenna, O'Shaughnessy, and Céret can produce more valid rankings that are more responsive to a user’s more recent expressed preferences. Brenna also considers the need for considering long-term and recent trends in [0064] “reliance on exclusively long-term trend data may in some cases be undesirable since long-term preferences are not necessarily the best prediction of current preferences, which may vary based on current events. A hybrid approach, as described above, may be offer a convenient blend of reliability and flexibility”. By considering the explicitly stated communication preferences of the user, and their recency, the combined system can be more responsive than the combination Brenna and O'Shaughnessy.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Brenna, O'Shaughnessy, and Céret teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. Brenna further teaches:
wherein the step of collecting comprises collecting data from two or more modes of communication for the participant (see [0075] "The operations 600 includes a tracking operation 602 that tracks communication activity of a first user conducted in association with a first communication account to a communication application (e.g., emails, chats, calls, meetings)" and [0030] "the communication tracker 114 keeps a counter in association with each different mode of communication utilized within a same participant group (e.g., sender/recipient). For example, a table 120 indicates that John has called Paul 12 times, text-chatted with Paul 18 different times, and emailed Paul three times since the start of corresponding interval represented by the illustrated table within the communication tracker 114")
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Brenna, O'Shaughnessy, and Céret teaches all of the limitations of claim 2 above. Brenna further teaches:
wherein the modes of communication comprise one or more of: phone calls, chat, email, text, electronic meeting, electronic collaboration, social media, video, or augmented reality (see [0030] "the communication tracker 114 keeps a counter in association with each different mode of communication utilized within a same participant group (e.g., sender/recipient). For example, a table 120 indicates that John has called Paul 12 times, text-chatted with Paul 18 different times, and emailed Paul three times since the start of corresponding interval represented by the illustrated table within the communication tracker 114")
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Brenna, O'Shaughnessy, and Céret teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. Brenna further teaches:
wherein the user preference information comprises ranked recommended modes of communication (see [0038] "Configurable communication mode preferences 204 allow a user to set a preferred communication mode (e.g., voice, chat email) for different types of contacts (e.g., close contacts, new contacts, org-external contacts, org-internal contacts, all contacts, or “other”). Other implementations may allow the user to specify an ordered list of preferred communication modes, either to use as a default across all contacts or for use in association with certain types of contacts (e.g., “ContactType” as shown)" for selecting an ordered list of preferences)
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Brenna, O'Shaughnessy, and Céret teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. Brenna further teaches:
wherein the user preference information comprises a recommended mode of communication based on one or more of: an identifier of the initiating user, an identifier of the participating user, a day, a time of day, a location of the participating user, a sentiment of a user, a location of the initiating user, or a topic (see [0038] "Configurable communication mode preferences 204 allow a user to set a preferred communication mode (e.g., voice, chat email) for different types of contacts (e.g., close contacts, new contacts, org-external contacts, org-internal contacts, all contacts, or “other”). Other implementations may allow the user to specify an ordered list of preferred communication modes, either to use as a default across all contacts or for use in association with certain types of contacts (e.g., “ContactType” as shown)" for the user preference information being based on a type of participating user)
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Brenna, O'Shaughnessy, and Céret teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. Brenna further teaches:
wherein the step of sending the one or more recommended modes of communication comprises sending two or more ranked recommended modes of communication (see [0079] "A presentation operation 610 presents, on a user interface of the communication application, the inferred communication preference stored within a select one of the populated contact cards. For example, the inferred communication for a contact card of a first user is presented to a second user when the second user hovers over or clicks on the contact card of the first user" and Fig. 5 and [0073] "When John interacts with UI content corresponding to Paul's contact card 514 (e.g., a graphic including Paul's name, image, avatar), the contact card 514 is displayed. In this case, Paul's communication preferences are presented in a text box 516 that reads “Preferred communication method: Email, Chat, Voice calls, Video Meetings,” and the order is indicative of a preference from most preferred to least preferred")
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Brenna, O'Shaughnessy, and Céret teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. Brenna further teaches:
wherein the data service module determines a ranked recommended mode of communication based on one or more of: an identifier of the initiating user, a day, a time of day, a location of the participating user, a location of the initiating user, a topic, an identifier of the participating user, preference of the initiating user, or preference of the participating user (see [0051] "the inference extractor 308 may determine that John has a preference for voice chatting with Paul—either as an individual and/or with all contacts having a characteristic in common with Paul. Notably, Paul is one of John's “close contacts” which is, for example, a setting designated either manually by John or automatically by the system based on the frequency and/or volume of communications between John and Paul. If an analysis of the people graph 310 reveals that “voice” is the dominant communication mode for a threshold number (e.g., 80% or more) of the communications that John initiates with his close contacts, “voice” may be set as a communication preference for the “close contacts” grouping. Similar preferences may likewise be inferred with respect to other groups of contacts having some recognizable commonality. If, for example, the inference extractor 308 detects that John initiates a threshold number (e.g., 80%) of communications with “new contacts” by email, the inference extractor 308 may infers a communication preference for email communications with “new contacts” of John (e.g., users that have not previously communicated electronically with John)" for determining a ranked recommended mode of communication based on the identifier of the participating user and the preference of the initiating user)
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Brenna, O'Shaughnessy, and Céret teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. While Brenna teaches receiving both user preference information and ranked implicit preference information and a user profile datastore as a recommendation engine as discussed above, the combination of Brenna and O'Shaughnessy does not explicitly teach comparing the user preference and implied preference information to generate the recommended modes of communication. Céret further teaches:
further comprising using a recommendation engine to compare the user preference information and the ranking information to generate the one or more recommended modes of communication (see [0125]-[0126] “For ranking itineraries on goals, the values for the stated and inferred goals 76, 78 are first aggregated at S112. The way the data are aggregated may depend on the estimated validity of the values. For instance, if the user stated his goals recently, the stated values are the most valid ones. But if the declaration has been made a long time ago and if there is relevant history since this declaration, the inferred goals, calculated from this history, are likely to be more valid than the declaration. The result is a weighted average, where the weights (coefficients) depend on the validity… For example each coefficient has value between minimum and maximum values, such as from 1 to 12. For example, the coefficient of stated goals is 12 when they just have been stated and linearly decreases over one year with the number of months since the declaration. After six months, their coefficient is 6. On the other hand, the coefficient of each of the inferred goals is 1 when a goal declaration has just been made and then linearly increases during one year to a maximum value (a reset is made when stated goals are modified)” for, in combination with the combination of Brenna and O'Shaughnessy, comparing the relative validity of the user-stated communication preferences and the inferred communication preferences when generating the rankings of recommended communication modes)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the weighting of stated and inferred preferences to arrive at a global/overall preference value of Céret to the combination of Brenna and O'Shaughnessy. As Céret states in [0125] “The way the data are aggregated may depend on the estimated validity of the values. For instance, if the user stated his goals recently, the stated values are the most valid ones. But if the declaration has been made a long time ago and if there is relevant history since this declaration, the inferred goals, calculated from this history, are likely to be more valid than the declaration”. By considering the recency of the stated preferences of the user in Brenna, the combined system of Brenna, O'Shaughnessy, and Céret can produce more valid rankings that are more responsive to a user’s more recent expressed preferences. Brenna also considers the need for considering long-term and recent trends in [0064] “reliance on exclusively long-term trend data may in some cases be undesirable since long-term preferences are not necessarily the best prediction of current preferences, which may vary based on current events. A hybrid approach, as described above, may be offer a convenient blend of reliability and flexibility”. By considering the explicitly stated communication preferences of the user, and their recency, the combined system can be more responsive than the combination Brenna and O'Shaughnessy.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Brenna, O'Shaughnessy, and Céret teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. Brenna further teaches:
further comprising, using an initiating user device, initiating a communication between the initiating user device and a participating user device (see Fig. 4 and [0069]-[0070] "When Sarah opens a chat window 402 within the communication application to begin corresponding with John (a person she has not previously corresponded with), communication preference information from John's contact card is presented within the chat window 402 on Sarah's display. Specifically, the chat window 402 displays the message “John prefers to be contacted by chat and his communication style is ‘No Hello.’” In this example, John's contact card information indicates a preference to be contacted by “Chat” (rather than email or phone)...Because John's communication preferences are presented to Sarah automatically at the time that Sarah is interacting with John's contact card, Sarah can tailor aspects of her outgoing communication to comply with John's preferences, thereby ensuring that her correspondence is less burdensome to John" for Sarah sending a chat message from her initiating device to John's participant device)
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Brenna, O'Shaughnessy, and Céret teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. The combination of Brenna and O'Shaughnessy does not explicitly teach weighting user preference information such that the user preference information is emphasized over the normalized participating user information when generating the recommended modes of communication. However, Céret further teaches:
wherein the user preference information is weighted such that the user preference information is emphasized over the normalized participating user information to generate the one or more recommended modes of communication (see [0125]-[0126] “For ranking itineraries on goals, the values for the stated and inferred goals 76, 78 are first aggregated at S112. The way the data are aggregated may depend on the estimated validity of the values. For instance, if the user stated his goals recently, the stated values are the most valid ones. But if the declaration has been made a long time ago and if there is relevant history since this declaration, the inferred goals, calculated from this history, are likely to be more valid than the declaration. The result is a weighted average, where the weights (coefficients) depend on the validity… For example each coefficient has value between minimum and maximum values, such as from 1 to 12. For example, the coefficient of stated goals is 12 when they just have been stated and linearly decreases over one year with the number of months since the declaration. After six months, their coefficient is 6. On the other hand, the coefficient of each of the inferred goals is 1 when a goal declaration has just been made and then linearly increases during one year to a maximum value (a reset is made when stated goals are modified)” for, in combination with the combination of Brenna and O'Shaughnessy, weighting stated user communication preferences above inferred communication preferences shortly after a user states their communication preferences)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the weighting of stated and inferred preferences to arrive at a global/overall preference value of Céret to the combination of Brenna and O'Shaughnessy. As Céret states in [0125] “The way the data are aggregated may depend on the estimated validity of the values. For instance, if the user stated his goals recently, the stated values are the most valid ones. But if the declaration has been made a long time ago and if there is relevant history since this declaration, the inferred goals, calculated from this history, are likely to be more valid than the declaration”. By considering the recency of the stated preferences of the user in Brenna, the combined system of Brenna, O'Shaughnessy, and Céret can produce more valid rankings that are more responsive to a user’s more recent expressed preferences. Brenna also considers the need for considering long-term and recent trends in [0064] “reliance on exclusively long-term trend data may in some cases be undesirable since long-term preferences are not necessarily the best prediction of current preferences, which may vary based on current events. A hybrid approach, as described above, may be offer a convenient blend of reliability and flexibility”. By considering the explicitly stated communication preferences of the user, and their recency, the combined system can be more responsive than the combination Brenna and O'Shaughnessy.
Claims 8-9 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brenna in view of O'Shaughnessy, Céret, and Stafford et al. (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2010/0318486, hereafter known as Stafford).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Brenna, O'Shaughnessy, and Céret teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. While Brenna teaches viewing communication data from previous time periods in [0059] and determining if any temporary changes need to be made to the inferred preferences in [0060], the combination of Brenna, O'Shaughnessy, and Céret does not explicitly teach sending a recommended time for communication. Stafford teaches:
further comprising sending a recommended time for communication (see Fig. 5B indicating that the message will be sent in 5 seconds and [0031] "The user's wireless communications device instant messaging screen 510 may display an instant message received from the proactive communications device that indicates which client the automatic proactive communicator is about to attempt to communicate an instant message with" and [0036] for determining the best time to contact a particular participating user and displaying that time on the initiating user's device)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the determination and sending of a recommended time of communication of Stafford into the combination of Brenna, O'Shaughnessy, and Céret. As Stafford states in [0036] “Related to the present invention, using a body of data of past calls, the likelihood of a person being available at particular time may be updated based on information received from future attempts at contacting a particular contact. For example, if a contact has only been available before 9 a.m. once, each additional attempt at communication with the contact prior to 9 a.m. would diminish the chances of the contact being available before 9 a.m. The automatic proactive communicator would eventually have enough data to determine that the contact should not be called before 9 a.m., to allow for the most efficient use of the user's time. Data may be compiled not only on the contact, but also on the availability of the user, as well. For example, if the user frequently aborts communication attempts between a set period of time (for example between 4 and 6 pm), the algorithms may determine that it would be best to not attempt communications during these times”. In short, the incorporation of determining and recommending a particular time for communication results in a more efficient use of both the recipient’s and sender’s time, as communications are suggested at times when both the sender and the recipient are historically likely to be available and willing to communicate and not during times when they are unlikely to be available or willing to respond. Users’ time is therefore not wasted on viewing and declining recommendations that the user is unlikely to accept.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Brenna, O'Shaughnessy, Céret, and Stafford teaches all of the limitations of claim 8 above. While Brenna teaches users initiating the communication through the recommended modes of communication, the combination of Brenna, O'Shaughnessy, and Céret does not explicitly teach automatically connecting initiating and participant user devices at a recommended time. However, Stafford further teaches:
further comprising a step of automatically connecting an initiating user device to a communication with a participant user device at a recommended time (see Fig. 5B indicating that the message will be sent in 5 seconds and [0031] "The user's wireless communications device instant messaging screen 510 may display an instant message received from the proactive communications device that indicates which client the automatic proactive communicator is about to attempt to communicate an instant message with...the user may not select anything and wait for an automatic communication of the instant message" for the automatic IM connection at the recommended time)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the automatic connection of a sender and recipient device at a recommended communication time of Stafford into the combination of Brenna, O'Shaughnessy, Céret, and Stafford. As Stafford states in [0032], “By automatically initiating a telephone call to the user, the automatic proactive communicator allows the user to effortlessly keep in touch with the contacts without any additional effort on the user's part. If the user has time and wishes to talk to the contact, the user simply has to wait and will be connected to the contact”. Therefore, by automatically initiating communications at the recommended times, users can effortlessly keep in touch with contacts simply by allowing the automatic calling/contacting of a contact to proceed at the recommended time when a contact is likely to accept/reply to communications.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Brenna, O'Shaughnessy, and Céret teaches all of the limitations of claim 11 above. While Brenna teaches ranking communication modes in order of implied preference and users manually connecting via these preferred methods as discussed above, the combination of Brenna, O'Shaughnessy, and Céret does not explicitly teach automatically connecting the initiating and participant user devices using a highest ranking modes of communication. Stafford teaches:
further comprising automatically connecting the initiating user device to a communication with the participating user device using a highest ranked recommended mode of communication (see [0038] "if information for the contact is known for the telephone number, e-mail address or instant messenger, based upon learned experience as determined by the logic module or other means, one of the initiate modules 608-612 may be called to initiate the communication" and see [0030]-[0032] for the automatic initiation of the contact between the initiating and participating devices. In combination with the ranked modes of Brenna, the one mode selected based upon learned experience of Stafford [0038] would be the highest ranked mode)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the automatic connection of a sender and recipient device via a recommended communication mode of Stafford into the combination of Brenna, O'Shaughnessy, and Céret. As Stafford states in [0032], “By automatically initiating a telephone call to the user, the automatic proactive communicator allows the user to effortlessly keep in touch with the contacts without any additional effort on the user's part. If the user has time and wishes to talk to the contact, the user simply has to wait and will be connected to the contact”. Therefore, by automatically initiating communications at the recommended times, users can effortlessly keep in touch with contacts simply by allowing the automatic calling/contacting of a contact to proceed via the highest preferred mode of communication of the contact.
Claims 14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brenna in view of O'Shaughnessy, Céret, and Wilkins et al. (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2008/0205655, hereafter known as Wilkins).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Brenna, O'Shaughnessy, and Céret teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. Brenna further teaches sending a recommended mode of communication as discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above. While O'Shaughnessy teaches presenting an ordered list of modes and types of communication to an initiating user device, the modes and types are ranked together, so the combination of Brenna, O'Shaughnessy, and Céret does not explicitly teach the sending of a recommended mode of communication AND a recommended type of communication. Wilkins teaches:
wherein the step of sending one or more recommended modes of communication comprises sending a recommended mode and a recommended type of communication (see [0185] "A request by User B's network device for User A's serial number and contact record results in the dissemination User A's contact information to User B's network device along with the preferred methods of contacting User A. The network device is adapted with a preferred method manager 536 (FIG. 11b). When User B views User A's contact record, User B's network device may present the preferred method for contacting User A" for sending recommended contact information, and [0186] "when User B attempts to contact User A by a text-based method (e.g., email, SMS, or IM), the network device retrieves the preferred method, and the address or network identifier for the preferred contact method from the contact record. User B may then send the text message to User A via that method" and [0187] "when User B attempts to contact User A by voice-based methods (e.g., telephone, wireless phone, or VOIP) the network device attempts to connect via preferred methods in an ordinal manner (e.g., via VOIP first, via PSTN second, via cellular phone third" for sending the preferred type of communication. Particularly, sending a text or voice-based message is a preferred communication mode, then automatically receiving information for the preferred type of text- or voice-based communication (telephone, wireless phone, etc.) so the initiating device can start the communication)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the ranking and recommendation of communication types as well as communication modes as taught by Wilkins in the combination of Brenna, O'Shaughnessy, and Céret, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Specifically, Brenna already shows the capability to count the number of times communications are made within individual communication apps 106-110 and ranking these communication modes. One of ordinary skill in the art viewing Brenna and Wilkins would recognize that the counting and ranking method of Brenna can be further applied to result in a ranking of communication types as well as modes as taught in Wilkins. The incorporation of communication types has predictable results and would have been within the ability of one of ordinary skill in the art, as the counting method of Brenna would merely be applied to communication types and modes when generating rankings.
Regarding claim 20, Brenna teaches:
An electronic communication method comprising (see Fig. 6 and [0075]-[0079] for overall method of electronic communication)
collecting communication information for a participating user, the communication information comprising a plurality of modes of communication (see [0075] "The operations 600 includes a tracking operation 602 that tracks communication activity of a first user conducted in association with a first communication account to a communication application (e.g., emails, chats, calls, meetings)" and [0028]-[0033] for the tracking of the sender, recipient, and modes of each communication. See Fig. 3 and [0053]-[0058] for the communication tracker collecting data on the content of the messages)
using a data collection and normalization engine, normalizing the communication information for the participating user (see [0030] "the communication tracker 114 keeps a counter in association with each different mode of communication utilized within a same participant group (e.g., sender/recipient). For example, a table 120 indicates that John has called Paul 12 times, text-chatted with Paul 18 different times, and emailed Paul three times since the start of corresponding interval represented by the illustrated table within the communication tracker 114" for normalizing the historical communication into counter data tallying the number of communications made using the communication tracker, which Examiner is interpreting as a data collection and normalization engine)
collecting user preference information for the participating user (see Fig. 2 and [0038] "Configurable communication mode preferences 204 allow a user to set a preferred communication mode (e.g., voice, chat email) for different types of contacts (e.g., close contacts, new contacts, org-external contacts, org-internal contacts, all contacts, or “other”). Other implementations may allow the user to specify an ordered list of preferred communication modes, either to use as a default across all contacts or for use in association with certain types of contacts (e.g., “ContactType” as shown)")
storing the normalized user information in a database (see [0030] "the communication tracker 114 keeps a counter in association with each different mode of communication utilized within a same participant group (e.g., sender/recipient)" and [0045] "The system 300 includes a communication tracker 306 and an inference extractor 308 that perform at least some functions the same or similar to like-named components described with respect to FIG. 1" and [0065] "some of the illustrated software components are executed remotely, such as at one or more a cloud-based application servers" for storing the normalized information on application servers)
storing the user preference information in the database (see [0024] "each user profile within the user profile datastore 112 includes communication preference, such as information relating to a user's preferred mode of communication and/or the specific content preferences. Updates to profile data within the user profile datastore 112 are affected by “pushing” profile data collected on user devices to the user profile datastore. For example, one or more of the communication application(s) 104 on the personal device 102 may update local user profile data 116 for John, such as responsive to alterations to profile settings that John manually configures or responsive to preference inferences extracted by the communication system 100" and [0067] "updated information within the user profile communication preferences 312 may be transmitted to a global user profile datastore (e.g., the user profile datastore 112 of FIG. 1)" and [0065] "some of the illustrated software components are executed remotely, such as at one or more a cloud-based application servers" for storing the user preference information on the application servers)
using a data service module, analyzing the normalized participating user information and generating ranking information of recommended modes of communication for the participating user (see inference extractor 118 and 308 for the data service module. See [0051]-[0052] for the inference extractor accessing counts of communication modes and determining communication mode preferences. See [0030] "From this tracked information, the inference extractor 118 may infer that John's communication preferences for correspondence with Paul are, in descending order of preference: chat, voice, and email. Notably, this trend may be true across most or all of John's contacts. If so, a communication mode preference may be updated within the local user profile data 116 to indicate that, as a default, John's mode of communication preferences are, in descending order: chat, voice, and email regardless of sender identity" for accessing normalized communication information to generating ranking of recommended modes of communication)
and sending a recommended mode (see [0079] "A presentation operation 610 presents, on a user interface of the communication application, the inferred communication preference stored within a select one of the populated contact cards. For example, the inferred communication for a contact card of a first user is presented to a second user when the second user hovers over or clicks on the contact card of the first user" and Fig. 5 and [0073] "When John interacts with UI content corresponding to Paul's contact card 514 (e.g., a graphic including Paul's name, image, avatar), the contact card 514 is displayed. In this case, Paul's communication preferences are presented in a text box 516 that reads “Preferred communication method: Email, Chat, Voice calls, Video Meetings,” and the order is indicative of a preference from most preferred to least preferred")
As discussed above regarding claim 10, Brenna does not explicitly teach the comparison of the ranked modes and types of communication with the user communication preference information. Additionally, Brenna also does not explicitly teach the collecting of information on the type of communication for each mode of communication used, generating a ranking information of the type of communication used, and sending the recommended type as well as mode of communication to the initiating user device. However, O'Shaughnessy teaches:
collecting communication information for a participating user, the communication information comprising a plurality of modes of communication and one or more types of communication for each mode (see [0060] “step 503 follows in which the mode comparator module 118 determines whether historical data is available from the historical data module 117. If available, the relevant call history is retrieved from the communications history database 120. At step 504 the mode comparator module 118 calculates for each of the communication modes a respective call history score” and [0032]. See [0038] for multiple modes and types (telephone communication via mobile telephone, push-to-talk, etc.) of communication being collected)
using a data collection and normalization engine, normalizing the communication information for the participating user by segmenting the historical communication information into blocks of data based on a type of the historical communication information to provide normalized participating user information (see Fig. 6 and [0090]-[0092] “At step 600, an initial mode is selected and at step 601 the call history data is analyzed for that particular selected mode to determine within a window of .+-.N minutes from the current time how many calls were made using the mode, covering a number of days specified by variable D…At step 602, this count is divided by D to give a short term average number of calls per day…A simple process finds a count for a larger period of H days and a long term average number of calls per day is calculated” and [0097] “Step 611 then determines whether there are further modes to be processed and if so the next mode is selected at step 613 and the process recommences from 601” for segmenting the communication data into blocks within N minutes of the current time over a plurality of days. See [0038] for different communication types including landline telephone, mobile telephone, push to talk telephone communication, etc. In combination with Brenna, the communication information is segmented into the time blocks as part of the normalization. See Applicant’s disclosure [0018] for grouping data into blocks of time as normalizing the data)
using a data service module, analyzing the normalized participating user information and generating ranking information of recommended modes of communication for the participating user and ranking information of recommended types of communication for the participating user based on the analysis (see Fig. 5 and [0060]-[0063] and [0077]-[0080] for the generation of an ordered list of modes and types of communication based on analysis of the normalized historical communication information of the participating user)
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of segmenting the historical user communication data into time blocks as part of the normalization of historical communication data and analyzing the normalized data to generate ranking information on modes and types of communications of O'Shaughnessy to the system of Brenna would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of O'Shaughnessy to the teaching of Brenna would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such segmenting the historical user communication data into time blocks as part of the normalization of historical communication data and analyzing the normalized data to generate ranking information on modes and types of communications. Further, applying segmenting the historical user communication data into time blocks as part of the normalization of historical communication data and analyzing the normalized data to generate ranking information on modes and types of communications to Brenna would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow more efficient and accurate communication mode recommendations. By evaluating the communication history in blocks of time surrounding the current time, the combined system can more accurately determine communication preferences that may be time dependent. By looking at the communication mode preferences over blocks of time, the combined system can more accurately track and consider scheduling and behavior patterns related to communication mode preferences, resulting in more accurate rankings and suggestions to users.
While Brenna teaches receiving both user preference information and ranked implicit preference information and a user profile datastore as a recommendation engine as discussed above, the combination of Brenna and O'Shaughnessy does not explicitly teach comparing the user preference and implied preference information to generate the recommended modes of communication. The combination of Brenna and O'Shaughnessy also does not explicitly teach sending the recommended type as well as mode of communication to the initiating user device. Céret teaches:
comparing the ranking information of recommended modes of communication and the ranking information of recommended types of communication for the participating user to the preference information (see [0125]-[0126] “For ranking itineraries on goals, the values for the stated and inferred goals 76, 78 are first aggregated at S112. The way the data are aggregated may depend on the estimated validity of the values. For instance, if the user stated his goals recently, the stated values are the most valid ones. But if the declaration has been made a long time ago and if there is relevant history since this declaration, the inferred goals, calculated from this history, are likely to be more valid than the declaration. The result is a weighted average, where the weights (coefficients) depend on the validity… For example each coefficient has value between minimum and maximum values, such as from 1 to 12. For example, the coefficient of stated goals is 12 when they just have been stated and linearly decreases over one year with the number of months since the declaration. After six months, their coefficient is 6. On the other hand, the coefficient of each of the inferred goals is 1 when a goal declaration has just been made and then linearly increases during one year to a maximum value (a reset is made when stated goals are modified)” for, in combination with the combination of Brenna and O'Shaughnessy, comparing the relative validity of the user-stated communication preferences and the inferred communication preferences when generating the rankings of recommended communication modes)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the weighting of stated and inferred preferences to arrive at a global/overall preference value of Céret to the combination of Brenna and O'Shaughnessy. As Céret states in [0125] “The way the data are aggregated may depend on the estimated validity of the values. For instance, if the user stated his goals recently, the stated values are the most valid ones. But if the declaration has been made a long time ago and if there is relevant history since this declaration, the inferred goals, calculated from this history, are likely to be more valid than the declaration”. By considering the recency of the stated preferences of the user in Brenna, the combined system of Brenna, O'Shaughnessy, and Céret can produce more valid rankings that are more responsive to a user’s more recent expressed preferences. Brenna also considers the need for considering long-term and recent trends in [0064] “reliance on exclusively long-term trend data may in some cases be undesirable since long-term preferences are not necessarily the best prediction of current preferences, which may vary based on current events. A hybrid approach, as described above, may be offer a convenient blend of reliability and flexibility”. By considering the explicitly stated communication preferences of the user, and their recency, the combined system can be more responsive than the combination Brenna and O'Shaughnessy.
While O'Shaughnessy teaches presenting an ordered list of modes and types of communication to an initiating user device, the modes and types are ranked together, so the combination of Brenna, O'Shaughnessy, and Céret does not explicitly teach the sending of a recommended mode of communication AND a recommended type of communication. However, Wilkins teaches:
and sending a recommended mode and type of communication to an initiating user device (see [0185] "A request by User B's network device for User A's serial number and contact record results in the dissemination User A's contact information to User B's network device along with the preferred methods of contacting User A. The network device is adapted with a preferred method manager 536 (FIG. 11b). When User B views User A's contact record, User B's network device may present the preferred method for contacting User A" for sending recommended contact information, and [0186] "when User B attempts to contact User A by a text-based method (e.g., email, SMS, or IM), the network device retrieves the preferred method, and the address or network identifier for the preferred contact method from the contact record. User B may then send the text message to User A via that method" and [0187] "when User B attempts to contact User A by voice-based methods (e.g., telephone, wireless phone, or VOIP) the network device attempts to connect via preferred methods in an ordinal manner (e.g., via VOIP first, via PSTN second, via cellular phone third" for sending the preferred type of communication. Particularly, sending a text or voice-based mode is a preferred communication mode, then automatically receiving information for the preferred type of text- or voice-based communication so the initiating device can start the communication)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the collection of information on, as well as the ranking and recommendation of, communication types and communication modes as taught by Wilkins in the combination of Brenna, O'Shaughnessy, and Céret, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Specifically, Brenna already shows the capability to count the number of times communications are made within individual communication apps 106-110 and ranking and recommending these communication modes. One of ordinary skill in the art viewing Brenna and Wilkins would recognize that the counting, ranking, and recommending method of Brenna can be further applied to result in a ranking of communication types as well as modes as taught in Wilkins. The incorporation of communication types has predictable results and would have been within the ability of one of ordinary skill in the art, as the counting method of Brenna would merely be applied to communication types and modes when generating rankings.
Claims 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brenna in view of O'Shaughnessy.
Regarding claim 15, Brenna teaches:
An electronic communication system comprising (see Fig. 1 and [0018] "FIG. 1 illustrates an example communication system 100 that infers user communication preferences and exposes those preferences to other users interacting with a communication application" for overall system)
a data collection and normalization engine configured to receive historical participant user communication information and to normalize the historical participant user communication information (see [0075] "The operations 600 includes a tracking operation 602 that tracks communication activity of a first user conducted in association with a first communication account to a communication application (e.g., emails, chats, calls, meetings)" and [0028]-[0033] for the tracking of the sender, recipient, and modes of each communication. See Fig. 3 and [0053]-[0058] for the communication tracker collecting data on the content of the messages. See [0030] "the communication tracker 114 keeps a counter in association with each different mode of communication utilized within a same participant group (e.g., sender/recipient). For example, a table 120 indicates that John has called Paul 12 times, text-chatted with Paul 18 different times, and emailed Paul three times since the start of corresponding interval represented by the illustrated table within the communication tracker 114" for normalizing the historical communication into counter data tallying the number of communications made using the communication tracker, which Examiner is interpreting as a data collection and normalization engine)
a database comprising the normalized participating user information and participant user preference information (see [0024] "each user profile within the user profile datastore 112 includes communication preference, such as information relating to a user's preferred mode of communication and/or the specific content preferences. Updates to profile data within the user profile datastore 112 are affected by “pushing” profile data collected on user devices to the user profile datastore. For example, one or more of the communication application(s) 104 on the personal device 102 may update local user profile data 116 for John, such as responsive to alterations to profile settings that John manually configures or responsive to preference inferences extracted by the communication system 100" and [0067] "updated information within the user profile communication preferences 312 may be transmitted to a global user profile datastore (e.g., the user profile datastore 112 of FIG. 1)" for a database of the participant user preference information. See [0030] "the communication tracker 114 keeps a counter in association with each different mode of communication utilized within a same participant group (e.g., sender/recipient)" and [0045] "The system 300 includes a communication tracker 306 and an inference extractor 308 that perform at least some functions the same or similar to like-named components described with respect to FIG. 1" and [0065] "some of the illustrated software components are executed remotely, such as at one or more a cloud-based application servers" for storing the normalized information and participant preference information on an application server)
a data service module configured to receive and analyze the normalized participating user information and to generate ranking of recommended modes of communication information for the participating user based on the analysis of the normalized participating user information (see inference extractor 118 and 308 for the data service module. See [0051]-[0052] for the inference extractor accessing counts of communication modes and determining communication mode preferences. See [0030] "From this tracked information, the inference extractor 118 may infer that John's communication preferences for correspondence with Paul are, in descending order of preference: chat, voice, and email. Notably, this trend may be true across most or all of John's contacts. If so, a communication mode preference may be updated within the local user profile data 116 to indicate that, as a default, John's mode of communication preferences are, in descending order: chat, voice, and email regardless of sender identity" for accessing normalized communication information to generating ranking of recommended modes of communication)
and a recommendation engine to receive the ranking of recommended modes of communication information and the participant user preference information and to provide a recommended mode of communication to an initiating user device (see user profile datastore 112 for the recommendation engine and [0025] "When the local user profile data 116 is updated on John's device (the personal device 102), this information—including updated communication preferences—is pushed to the user profile datastore 112 and is ultimately downloaded to the devices 122, 124 and made accessible to Paul and Sarah through their respective communication accounts" and [0027] "the local user profile data 116 includes communication preferences of the associated account owner (John). Updates to these communication preferences may be manually specified the account owner (e.g., John), such as within configurable settings of a corresponding one of the communication applications 104 and/or inferred by software components of the communication system 100" for the receipt of inferred preference rankings and manually entered preferences and providing recommended communication methods to other users)
While Brenna teaches normalizing historical communication data by determining counts of communication modes and participants in a communication session as discussed above, Brenna does not explicitly teach normalizing the historical communication information by segmenting the communication information into blocks based on the type of the historical communication information. O'Shaughnessy teaches:
normalize the historical participant user communication information by segmenting the historical participant user communication information into blocks of data based on a type of the historical participant user communication information to provide normalized participating user information (see Fig. 6 and [0090]-[0092] “At step 600, an initial mode is selected and at step 601 the call history data is analyzed for that particular selected mode to determine within a window of .+-.N minutes from the current time how many calls were made using the mode, covering a number of days specified by variable D…At step 602, this count is divided by D to give a short term average number of calls per day…A simple process finds a count for a larger period of H days and a long term average number of calls per day is calculated” and [0097] “Step 611 then determines whether there are further modes to be processed and if so the next mode is selected at step 613 and the process recommences from 601” for segmenting the communication data into blocks within N minutes of the current time over a plurality of days. See [0038] for different communication types including landline telephone, mobile telephone, push to talk telephone communication, etc. In combination with Brenna, the communication information is segmented into the time blocks as part of the normalization. See Applicant’s disclosure [0018] for grouping data into blocks of time as normalizing the data)
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of segmenting the historical user communication data into time blocks as part of the normalization of historical communication data of O'Shaughnessy to the system of Brenna would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of O'Shaughnessy to the teaching of Brenna would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such segmenting the historical user communication data into time blocks as part of the normalization of historical communication data. Further, applying segmenting the historical user communication data into time blocks as part of the normalization of historical communication data to Brenna would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow more efficient and accurate communication mode recommendations. By evaluating the communication history in blocks of time surrounding the current time, the combined system can more accurately determine communication preferences that may be time dependent. By looking at the communication mode preferences over blocks of time, the combined system can more accurately track and consider scheduling and behavior patterns related to communication mode preferences, resulting in more accurate rankings and suggestions to users.
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Brenna and O'Shaughnessy teaches all of the limitations of claim 15 above. Brenna further teaches:
wherein the data collection and normalization engine resides on a communication server (see [0033] "Various aspects of the communication tracker 114 and the inference extractor 118 may be cloud-based", [0045] “The system 300 includes a communication tracker 306 and an inference extractor 308 that perform at least some functions the same or similar to like-named components described with respect to FIG. 1”, and [0065] "some of the illustrated software components are executed remotely, such as at one or more a cloud-based application servers" for the communication tracker being on a server)
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Brenna and O'Shaughnessy teaches all of the limitations of claim 15 above. Brenna further teaches:
wherein the data service module resides on a communication server (see [0033] "Various aspects of the communication tracker 114 and the inference extractor 118 may be cloud-based")
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Brenna and O'Shaughnessy teaches all of the limitations of claim 15 above. Brenna further teaches:
wherein the recommendation engine resides on a communication server (see [0023] "The user profile datastore 112 is, for example, a cloud-based profile database system that includes profile data for various users")
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brenna in view of O'Shaughnessy and Chakraborty et al. (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2024/0179538, hereafter known as Chakraborty).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Brenna and O'Shaughnessy teaches all of the limitations of claim 15 above. While Brenna teaches inferring content/style preferences of a user when receiving communications in at least [0053] and [0054], the combination of Brenna and O'Shaughnessy does not explicitly teach a sentiment analysis engine determining a sentiment of the communication of the participating user. However, Chakraborty teaches:
further comprising a sentiment analysis engine to determine a sentiment of the communication information for the participating user (see [0102] "data models are created using artificial intelligence models and predictive analytics. The data models are specific to communication tendencies of a user. The insights/capabilities may include the recommendation of a best communication platform based on the context of message and the type of message being shared...The communication mode management program 116 may understand user behavioral patterns from the communication history data, may define a user fingerprint to understand a mood of the user at a specific point in time based on the current conditions, and based on the mood may recommend a type of content and message content modifications for users trying to communicate with the first user" and [0067] "If a sender is sending a message to receiver, the communication mode management program 116 may understand a mood of the receiver by analyzing various factors such as word tones and vocabulary choice of messages and/or conversations of the receiver. Based on a sour mood of the receiver, the communication mode management program 116 may recommend a different wording for the message content and may send this proposal to the sender")
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of analyzing the mood of a recipient and suggestions alterations to the content of messages based on the determined mood of Chakraborty to the combination of Brenna and O'Shaughnessy would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Chakraborty to the teaching of the combination of Brenna and O'Shaughnessy would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such analyzing the mood of a recipient and suggestions alterations to the content of messages based on the determined mood. Further, applying analyzing the mood of a recipient and suggestions alterations to the content of messages based on the determined mood to the combination of Brenna and O'Shaughnessy would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow the communication sender to get the best reception from the recipient. On top of communicating in the recipient’s preferred mode, the combined system would also assist the sender in navigating the recipient’s mood. The combined system’s suggestion of message content based on the recipient’s mood would further allow communication between the users proceed more smoothly and tactfully.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Hymel (U.S. Patent No. 7,330,731) teaches determining the next communication mode to try to contact a user if a previous mode is disconnected
VanBlon et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10,659,592) teaches automatically switching a communication session to a preferred mode of a recipient user
Zafar et al. (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2010/0080412) teaches determining whether a user is morning or night person based on communication activity during those time periods
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL C MORONEY whose telephone number is (571)272-4403. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30-5:30.
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, Resha H. Desai can be reached at (571) 270-7792. 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.
/M.C.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/RESHA DESAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3628