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 .
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 with two periods (“.”). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: On line 19 of Claim 1, “Wherein” should be --wherein--. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-10 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim limitation “Ingester Module” and “command translation module” invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. As per claim 1, the system comprising: “an Ingester Module configured to” uses a non-structural term in place of “means for” to perform functions without any structural modifier. The term “Module” is modified by a functional language “Ingester” and does not include the structure necessary to perform the claimed invention. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-8, 11-18, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by van de Nieuwegiessen et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2025/0315470 A1 (hereinafter Nieuwegiessen).
As per claims 1, 11, Nieuwegiessen discloses a system for interconnecting users with one or more applications in an agnostic, centralized manner (see automated predictive response system 150 on page 3 section [0028] and Figure 1 interconnecting user agent 172a on page 5 section [0039] with plurality of different messaging computing systems 110a-110n such as social applications and messaging applications, and email applications on page 3 section [0031], or one or more applications as claimed, on Figure 1), the system comprising:
a) an Ingester Module configured to receive data (see receiving data from multiple data applications on page 10 section [0082] and Figure 9 and see receiving multiple data from different applications on page 11 section [0089] and Figure 12 ) from a plurality of originating applications (see plurality of messaging computing systems 110a-110n such as social media application, messenger applications, and email applications, or plurality of originating applications as claimed, on page 3 section [0031]) and to standardize (see data may be formatted and transmitted on page 3 section [0026]) the received data into a uniform format (see converting data format into a uniform or agnostic data format, or uniform format as claimed, on page 4 section [0034]);
b) an Action Card Creator communicatively coupled with the Ingester Module, the Action Card Creator being adapted to generate interactive notifications (see generating conversations for queue, or interactive notifications as claimed, on page 5 section [0041]) based on the standardized data, wherein the interactive notifications are tailored for user interaction (see conversation messages, or interactive notification as claimed, are placed in priority queues tailored for user interaction on page 5 section [0041];
c) a Notification Dispatcher in communication with the Action Card Creator, the Notification Dispatcher being programmed to selectively route the interactive notifications (see selectively routing to a specific user agent based on predicted intent and response, or predetermined criteria as claimed on page 9 section [0068] and see conversation messages, or interactive notification as claimed, are routed in priority queues tailored for user interaction on page 5 section [0041]) to one or more end-user notification platforms based on predetermined criteria (see conversation messages, or interactive notification as claimed, are routed in priority queue based in predetermined priority criteria on page 5 section [0041]);
d) a Command Translation Module, the Command Translation Module being structured to receive user interactions from the end-user notification platforms, to translate the received user interactions into a standardized command format, and to convey the translated commands to the respective originating applications (see user input can be implemented into a variety of actions based on the conversation such as direct message response or invite message on page 5 section [0043]);
e) a plurality of Communication Interfaces managed by the Notification Dispatcher, each Communication Interface being configured for interfacing (see agent user interface with multiple queues based on priority on page 5 section [0041]) with a corresponding end-user notification platform to enable the delivery and receipt of the interactive notifications and user responses thereto (see receiving a delivery of conversations to response with a direct message on page 5 section [0043]).
Wherein the system integrates machine learning algorithms (see machine learning algorithm and natural language processing to predict conversation intent on page 4 section [0035]) to predict user preferences and to personalize the interactive notifications (see using pattern recognition and predictive machine learning to analyze message data for identifying an event for appropriate message response on page 7 section [0053] and use of priority queues based on determined intent and set priority on page 5 section [0011]), and wherein the system operates across different communication protocols (see format using different protocols between source applications and central user agent response system on page 3 section [0026]) to provide a platform-agnostic solution for centralized application interconnection (see receiving different format of data from different applications and convert received data into a uniform or agnostic data format on page 4 section [0034] for central application response processing in the automated predictive response system 150 on page 3 section [0028] and Figure 1).
As per claims 2, 12, Nieuwegiessen discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the Ingester Module is further configured to validate the received data against predefined data schemas corresponding to the respective originating applications (see use of predefined known database schemas on data format on page 2 section [0024] and see converting, and in turn validating data, into a uniform data on page 4 section [0034]).
As per claims 3, 13, Nieuwegiessen discloses the system of claim 1 or 2, wherein the Action Card Creator includes a template database (see use of predefined known database schemas on data format on page 2 section [0024]) storing a plurality of notification templates, and is configured to select a notification template based on characteristics of the standardized data (see data storage schema, or notification templates as claimed, for presentations of messages on different devices on page 2 section [0025]).
As per claims 4, 14, Nieuwegiessen discloses the system of any preceding claims, wherein the Notification Dispatcher includes logic to prioritize the routing of the interactive notifications based on user-defined settings or urgency indicators within the standardized data (see routing conversation messages based on priority to specific agent user’s different priority queues on page 5 section [0041]).
As per claims 5, 15, Nieuwegiessen discloses the system of any preceding claims, wherein the Command Translation Module is configured to support bidirectional communication by providing a response mechanism within the interactive notifications allowing users to submit responses directly through the end-user notification platforms (see user response message using a direct messaging, or bidirectional response as claimed, to the application on page 5 section [0043]).
As per claims 6, 16, Nieuwegiessen discloses the system of claim 5, wherein the Command Translation Module includes logic to interpret natural language (see Natural Language Processing NLP on page 4 section [0035]) user responses into actionable system commands (see user input response are implemented into actions, or system commands as claimed, on page 5 section [0043]).
As per claims 7, 17, Nieuwegiessen discloses the system of any preceding claims, wherein each Communication Interface of the Notification Dispatcher is tailored to conform to the specific data format and protocol (see transmitted data is formatted and transmitted over correct protocol and format on page3 section [0026]) requirements of its corresponding end-user notification platform (see correct format is used to match end messaging system applications 110a-110n on page 3 section [0031] using direct messaging to the application on page 5 section [0043]).
As per claims 8, 18, Nieuwegiessen discloses the system of claim 7, wherein the Communication Interfaces include an API integration that allows for the dynamic updating of notification formats in response to changes in the corresponding end-user notification platform requirements (see use of APIs for converting data formats for messaging between central response system and source application systems on page 4 section [0034] and see use of API to implement application communications on page 10 section [0082]).
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 9-10, 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over van de Nieuwegiessen et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2025/0315470 A1 (hereinafter Nieuwegiessen), and further in view of Price et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2012/0117178 A1 (hereinafter Price).
As per claims 9, 19, Nieuwegiessen do not disclose expressly: system of any preceding claims, wherein the Notification Dispatcher is further configured to implement a fallback mechanism to reroute interactive notifications to a secondary end-user notification platform in the event of a delivery failure to a primary end-user notification platform.
Price teaches: system of any preceding claims, wherein the Notification Dispatcher is further configured to implement a fallback mechanism to reroute interactive notifications to a secondary end-user notification platform in the event of a delivery failure to a primary end-user notification platform (see intelligent message routing sending message to primary preferred recipient and use secondary delivery recipient channel if delivery method fails on page 4 section [0059]).
Nieuwegiessen and Price are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, priority message routing systems. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would at been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art to use a secondary notification platform in the event of delivery failure. The motivation for doing so would have been to ensure the delivery of the message via a backup channel (see page 4 section [0059] in Price). Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Nieuwegiessen and Price for the benefit of fallback reroute mechanism to obtain the invention as specified in claims 9, 19.
As per claims 10, 20, Nieuwegiessen and Price disclose the system of claim 9, wherein the fallback mechanism is triggered based on real-time delivery status feedback received from the end-user notification platforms (see timed status update for delivery condition on page 4 section [0058] in Price). The motivation to combine is same as above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yi et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2016/0149839 A1. Network based chat server with proxies to particular chat platform (see Abstract and Figure 1).
Thomason et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2022/0036271 A1. Receiving first data from first application and second data from a second application and provide a same format to provide uniform presentation of information relating to the first and second task (see Abstract).
Miller et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2014/0280657 A1. Priority level for notification (see Abstract).
Crouse et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2023/0168955 A1. Incoming messaging validation system (see Figure 1).
Leach et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2022/0083015 A1. Middleware exchanging messages between applications (see section [0034]).
Mishra et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2023/0010417 A1. Message-oriented-middle ware system (see Abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALAN S CHOU whose telephone number is (571)272-5779. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00-5:00 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Chris L Parry can be reached at (571)272-8328. 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.
/ALAN S CHOU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2451