DETAILED ACTION
-Claims 1, 14 and 18 are amended.
-Objection to the specification is withdrawn based on the filed correction.
-Claims 1-20 are pending.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s Remarks filed on 11/20/2025 have been fully considered however they are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by the claim amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claims 1, 14 and 18 recite the terms “the federation session orchestrator” which now lack antecedent basis. The dependent claims inherit this rejection.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karp et al (US Patent No.10,630,840) in view of Fakhraie et al (US Pub.No.2023/0419275) and further in view of Farnsworth et al (US Patent No.10,965,810).
Re Claim 1. Karp discloses a system for determining, managing, and securing data in federated data channels, the system comprising: a memory device with computer-readable program code stored thereon; at least one processing device operatively coupled to the at least one memory device and the at least one communication device, wherein executing the computer-readable code is configured to cause the at least one processing device to: identify a first communication channel, wherein the first communication channel comprises a first user communication (i.e. Upon receiving a command, the API server 126 may perform various functions depending on the nature of the command. For example, in some cases, the API server 126 call up an API stored locally or remotely on another device, to retrieve customer data (e.g., retrieve an account balance), perform an account action (e.g., make a payment on a customer account), authenticate a customer (e.g., verify customer credentials), check a status of a revocable token, and/or execute an opt-in/opt-out command (e.g., change account to opt-in to paperless notifications, opt-in or opt-out of account servicing by SMS texting, etc.)…………………………. dialogue management system 122 may also update the customer context by receiving updated customer information…….. ……….. the customer information may include one or more of account types, account statuses, phone number, token, transaction history, conversation history, people models,) [Karp, col.29, ll.12-22 and 32-34, col.26, first paragraph] and associated first communication data (i.e. transactions involving an account associated with customers, or a request received from customers. In some embodiments, transactions can include, for example, a product/service purchase, product/service return, financial transfer, financial deposit, financial withdrawal, financial credit, financial debit, dispute request, warranty coverage request, and any other type of transaction associated with the products and/or services that an entity associated with the organization provides to individuals such as customers) [Karp, col.16, ll.5-11];
Karp does not explicitly disclose whereas Fakhraie does: determine, based on the first communication data, at least one third party communication requirement (i.e. once a user (whether the account holder or not) submits a payment for approval via the third-party client application, in various implementations, the client computing system may communicate with the service provider's computing system to exchange the data needed for the payment to be approved) [Fakhraie, para.0030]; initiate, based on the at least one third party communication requirement, at least one third party communication channel, (i.e. The service provider computing system 102 may, for example, cross-reference data in the token database of databases 124 to determine the validity of the security token received from the client computing system 104, and identify the users and user accounts associated with the security token. The service provider computing system 102 may then initiate a secure communications session with the approver device 106 (532)) [Fakhraie, para.0062], wherein the third party communication requirement comprises a requirement of a secondary user communication (i.e. KES 10 can respond to User B with an "Approval Required" message in steps 156 or 158 in an appropriate data format. If approval is required, User A, must approve the request before the KES 10 can release the EK record to User B (step 154)) [Fakhraie, para.0109];
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Karp with Fakhraie because it accommodates certain situations, such as in a joint account, where a first user may be approved to submit payments, but the payments are not processed until approved by a second user [Fakhraie, para.0026]. This motivation applies to the remainder of the claim.
Karp further discloses: identify an agent communication channel based on the first communication data (i.e. the user of the user device 102 may dial a phone number associated with system 100 thereby connecting with an IVR model 220 of the dialogue management system 122 or a live customer service representative.) [Karp, col.36, ll.15-19];
Karp in view of Fakhraie does not explicitly disclose whereas Farnsworth does: assemble the first communication channel, the at least one third party communication channel and the agent communication channel by a communication federation operation, wherein the communication federation operation organizes the first communication channel to communicate with the agent communication channel separate from the at least one third party communication channel (i.e. emthe multiple users and/or the representative may be viewing the same screen. The second user may be authenticated by the first user or may need to supply additional authentication information. For example, if a spouse and a representative are discussing a feature relating to a joint account, the spouse may wish to engage the other spouse (“second spouse”) in the conversation. Synchronization module 345 may be configured to initiate a voice and data call with the second spouse) [Farnsworth, col.13, ll.12-22];
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Karp in view of Fakhraie with Farnsworth in order to allow multiple parties to be engaged simultaneously on different devices [Farnsworth, col.13, ll.12-22].
Fakhraie further discloses: and collect the first communication data and the at least one third party communication data based on the federation session orchestrator (i.e. The submitter device 106 may then submit a payment (i.e., a specified amount to be paid to an identified payee using funds from an account administered by the service provider computing system 102) via the client application for approval (524)………………… The approver device 106 may transmit approval of the payment (534) during the secure communications session, and the service provider computing system 102 may receive the approval (536). The approval may be submitted, for example, using a website or application provided by the service provider computing system 102. The service provider computing system 102 may then make a payment by, for example, initiating a transfer of funds from the account administered by the service provider computing system 102 to an account of the payee) [Fakhraie, para.0062], (i.e. the message, instructions, or indication of activation from user computing device 106 may specify which client application link was activated (e.g., a link for submitting payments for approval) to allow the client computing system 104 to determine (via API call logic 132) which API call is to be made via API engine 142……………the client application may be configured to present the first display element (or other indicator) after the client application has received (via the network interface 156) a response from the client computing system 104 confirming that the client computing system 104 has made the submit-payment API call to the API gateway of the service provider computing system 102. Once the submit-payment API call has been received at the API gateway 122 of service provider computing system 102, the service provider computing system 102 may make the payments available for approval. The approvals may be received via a second computing device 106. In certain implementations, the second computing device 106 may approve via a second instance of the client application running on the second computing device 106……………… approval may be received via a website or application (e.g., a native application running on the second user device 106) provided by the service provider computing system 102. In some versions, the service provider computing system 102 receives approval via one or more secure communications sessions with the second user computing device 106) [Fakhraie, para.0073-0075, Fig.5-6 depict the or federation session orchestration], wherein the federation session orchestrator controls a pattern for requesting and collecting the first communication data and the at least one third party communication data (i.e. The approver may use the same application through which the payment was submitted for approval to approve and keep track of payments and amounts owed without having to leave the application for an application or website provided by the service provider computing system. The user and approver may submit and track payments within a single operating environment (i.e., the operating environment of the client application)) [Fakhraie, para.0030, Fig.5-6 depict a specific pattern for requesting and collecting the initial request for approval and the approval].
Re Claim 2. Karp in view of Fakhraie and Farnsworth discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the first communication data comprises an identification of an account identifier for the first communication channel (i.e. an event may have certain metadata (such as a phone number and/or token) associated with it that is sufficient to allow the system to determine the identity of a customer associated with the event and/or a communication medium from which the event originated) [Karp, col.25, ll.52-56], and wherein the at least one third party communication requirement is based on the account identifier (i.e. in response to determining that an AI chat session is not available for the servicing intent, the method 1000, includes recommend that the customer resume connecting with or connect with a customer representative. The dialogue management system 122 may prompt the user, via a new phone call or an already established phone call, for more information surrounding the user's purpose for calling. For example, the dialogue management system in conjunction with the NLP system 124 may generate a prompt that states “What would you like to accomplish?” or “What is the purpose for your call?” In other embodiments, when the customer or user is speaking with a human agent (in-person or over the phone) associated with a customer representative device 150, the dialogue management system 122 may transmit a prompt to the customer representative device to instruct the human agent to ask the user for more information surrounding the purpose for the call) [Karp, col.47, ll.19-29], (i.e. As another example, the AI chatbot model may not be able to wire money of $10,000 or more to a foreign company or bank to avoid fraud. As a further example, the AI chatbot model may not be able to cancel a subscription, credit card, or bank account due to policy reasons (e.g., the company wants you to speak with a person to convince you to not cancel before canceling)) [Karp, col.47-ll.11-15, Note: i.e. the requirement to speak with a person via a phone call is based on the identified user’s phone number].
Re Claim 3. Karp in view of Fakhraie and Farnsworth discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the first communication channel and the at least one third party communication channel comprise one communication channel type (i.e. the dialogue management system 122 may determine whether the transcribed one or more user utterances was mapped to a servicing intent token. When the dialogue management system 122 determines that the transcribed one or more user utterances was not mapped to a servicing intent token, the dialogue management system 122 may prompt the user, via the phone call, for more information surrounding the purpose for the call. For example, the dialogue management system in conjunction with the NLP system 124 may generate a prompt that states “What would you like to accomplish?” or “What is the purpose for your call?”) [Karp, col.37, ll.13-24, Note: i.e. the same channel, namely a phone call, is used for the first communication and the further communication with the third party].
Re Claim 4. Karp in view of Fakhraie and Farnsworth discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the first communication channel and the at least one third party communication channel comprise different communication channel types (i.e. As another example, the AI chatbot model may not be able to wire money of $10,000 or more to a foreign company or bank to avoid fraud. As a further example, the AI chatbot model may not be able to cancel a subscription, credit card, or bank account due to policy reasons (e.g., the company wants you to speak with a person to convince you to not cancel before canceling)) [Karp, col.47, ll.11-15, see also col.22 providing embodiments where an AI chatbot may use a text chat in which case the first communication is via text and the third party communication is a phone call].
Re Claim 5. Karp in view of Fakhraie and Farnsworth discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the first communication channel occurs within an interactive voice response (IVR) channel type (i.e. the system may receive, by an IVR model and from a user device associated with a user and a phone number, a first phone call)) [Karp, col.9, ll.38-40].
Re Claim 6. Karp in view of Fakhraie and Farnsworth discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the communication federation operation comprises a process for organizing the identified at least one third party communication channel and the first communication channel based on identifying a primary user account associated with the first communication data or the at least one third party communication data (i.e. The payment approver may be the account holder or another user authorized by the account holder to review and approve payments submitted by the payment submitter. In some implementations, the submitter may be, for example, an accountant, and the approver may be an account holder. ………….. The service provider computing system 102 may then make a payment by, for example, initiating a transfer of funds from the account administered by the service provider computing system 102 to an account of the payee) [Fakhraie, para.0060-0062, Fig.5 depicts the orchestration which based on identifying a primary user account].
The same motivation to modify with Fakhraie, as in claim 1, applies.
Re Claim 7. Karp in view of Fakhraie and Farnsworth discloses the system of claim 1, wherein executing the computer-readable code is configured to cause the at least one processing device to: access a virtual communication registry based on the first communication data; identify, within the virtual communication registry, at least one available communication channel; select the at least one available communication channel for the at least one third party communication channel (i.e. the service provider computing system 102 determines which users are authorized by the account holder to submit payments for review (218). The users may be selected from a list, which may be generated by the service provider computing system 102 based on known relationships with the account holder or prior registration. Alternatively or additionally, the users may be identified by receiving from the user device 106 the names and contact information (e.g., email address) of users. The service provider computing system 102 may then invite the identified users (via, e.g., a message sent to an e-mail address received from the user device 106) to register, or may wait for the user to, for example, connect with the service provider computing system 102 through a registration portal) [Fakhraie, para.0054];
The same motivation to modify with Fakhraie, as in claim 1, applies.
Karp further discloses: and update, based on the selected at least one available communication channel, the virtual communication registry with an account identifier or a user identifier for the selected at least one available communication channel (i.e. responsive to determining that the user device does not have the corresponding mobile application installed, selecting the SMS message channel when the user has a stored phone number on the system 100 or selecting the email message channel when the user does not have a stored phone number on the system 100 but does have a stored email address……………… the dialogue management system 122 may have stored in database 128 or customer information database 216 that the past three interactions with the authenticated user has been over SMS messaging. Thus, the dialogue management system 122 may decide that the user prefers a conversation over SMS message channel as opposed to mobile application notification channel or email/Internet based channel, and default to using SMS messaging for future communications) [Karp, col.34, ll.60-66, col.35, first paragraph].
Re Claim 8. Karp in view of Fakhraie and Farnsworth discloses the system of claim 7, wherein the selected at least one available communication channel is based on a user account preferred communication channel type associated with the user identifier (i.e. the dialogue management system 122 may decide that the user prefers a conversation over SMS message channel as opposed to mobile application notification channel or email/Internet based channel, and default to using SMS messaging for future communications unless the user indicates a user preference for another communication channel before or during the phone call (e.g., the dialogue management system 122 may receive a messaging channel selection from the user device 102). The messaging channel selection may be indicative of the user's preference for one or more messaging channels of the SM message channel, the mobile application notification channel, and the email message channel) [Karp, col.35, first paragraph].
Re Claim 9. Karp in view of Fakhraie and Farnsworth discloses the system of claim 8, wherein the user account preferred communication channel type comprises a primary channel preference, a secondary channel preference, and a channel router preference (i.e. the system may select a messaging channel based on explicit user preference, implicit user preference, type of information system is providing (e.g., optimal channel to handle the specific intent)) [Karp, col.5, ll.36-40, Note: explicit preference is primary, implicit preference is secondary, and preference based on type of information is channel router preference].
Re Claim 10. Karp in view of Fakhraie and Farnsworth discloses the system of claim 1, wherein executing the computer-readable code is configured to cause the at least one processing device to: identify an available agent communication channel (i.e. the user of the user device 102 may dial a phone number associated with system 100 thereby connecting with an IVR model 220 of the dialogue management system 122 or a live customer service representative.) [Karp, col.36, ll.15-19];
Farnsworth further discloses: and apply the available agent communication channel to the first communication channel and the at least one third party communication channel based on the communication federation operation (i.e. In some embodiments, the multiple users and/or the representative may be viewing the same screen. The second user may be authenticated by the first user or may need to supply additional authentication information. For example, if a spouse and a representative are discussing a feature relating to a joint account, the spouse may wish to engage the other spouse (“second spouse”) in the conversation. Synchronization module 345 may be configured to initiate a voice and data call with the second spouse) [Farnsworth, col.13, ll.12-22].
The same motivation to modify with Farnsworth, as in claim 1, applies.
Re Claim 11. Karp in view of Fakhraie and Farnsworth discloses the system of claim 10, wherein the available agent communication channel communicates with the first communication channel and the at least one third party communication channel (i.e. In some embodiments, the multiple users and/or the representative may be viewing the same screen. The second user may be authenticated by the first user or may need to supply additional authentication information. For example, if a spouse and a representative are discussing a feature relating to a joint account, the spouse may wish to engage the other spouse (“second spouse”) in the conversation. Synchronization module 345 may be configured to initiate a voice and data call with the second spouse) [Farnsworth, col.13, ll.12-22].
The same motivation to modify with Farnsworth, as in claim 1, applies.
Re Claim 12. Karp in view of Fakhraie and Farnsworth discloses the system of claim 11, wherein the available agent communication channel communicates with the first communication channel and the at least one third party communication channel at a same time or near same time (i.e. allow multiple parties to be engaged simultaneously on different devices) [Farnsworth, col.13, ll.12-22].
The same motivation to modify with Farnsworth, as in claim 1, applies.
Re Claim 13. Karp in view of Fakhraie and Farnsworth discloses the system of claim 10, Karp further discloses: wherein the first communication data is protected from the at least one third party communication channel, and wherein the at least one third party communication data is protected from the first communication channel (i.e. Because the information transmitted may be personal or confidential, security concerns may dictate one or more of these types of connections be encrypted or otherwise secured) [Karp, col.14, last paragraph].
Re Claims 14-17, these claims are similar to claims 1, 2, 6 and 7 and therefore they are similarly rejected.
Re Claims 18-20, these claims are similar to claims 1, 2 and 6 and therefore they are similarly rejected.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NOURA ZOUBAIR whose telephone number is (571)270-7285. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday.
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, Kambiz Zand can be reached at 571-272-3811. 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.
/NOURA ZOUBAIR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2434