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 .
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 11 and 12 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 11 and 12 contain the term “Xpression”. This term is not a known defined term in the related art. While applicant’s specification uses the term “Xpression” in various parts of the specification, there is no explicit definition that provides a specific scope for the term. For example, Paragraph 14 provides examples of what the message “could be” but does not provide any explicit limits. Accordingly, it is not clear the precise scope applicant intends for the term “Xpression” and the claims are indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
For the purpose of examination, the examiner will interpret Xpression as a message with content.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 11, 13-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2019/0132446 by Celik et al. (Celik).
With respect to claim 11, Celik teaches 11. A method for providing emotive and contextual messaging to mobile devices in a mobile network, the method comprising the steps of:
receiving trigger information at a Cloud Server from an Operator SMSC Server relating to a first mobile device; (Fig. 2-4, Paragraph 72-73, 87-88 – trigger event is received from SMSC by cloud server)
sending content to the first mobile device via a digital assistant from the Cloud Server to the Operator SMSC Server; (Fig. 4-5, Paragraph 72-73, 87-89, trigger event causes message to be sent to mobile device from cloud to SMSC “SMSC forwards the campaign message to subscriber A’s device)
receiving an Xpression from the first mobile device at the Cloud Server from the Operator SMSC server; and (Fig. 2, 5-6 Paragraph 75, 89-90 – subscriber selects a content message (equating to Xpression based on 112 above) in response, message is forwarded to server with destination address)
forwarding the Xpression from the Cloud Server to a second mobile device. (Paragraph 78, 92 – message is forwarded to the second mobile)
With respect to claim 13, Celik teaches the method of claim 11, further comprising receiving cancel information from the Operator SMSC server. (Fig. 6, paragraph 92 – user may send a no/cancel response)
With respect to claim 14, Celik teaches the method of claim 13, further comprising the step of forwarding content via a digital assistant to a first mobile device. (Paragraph 75, 90 – subscriber mobile device uses a digital application to assist in the steps of receiving the content messages)
With respect to claim 15, Celik teaches a system for providing emotive and contextual messaging to one or more mobile devices in a mobile network, the system comprising:
a Cloud Server, wherein the cloud server is communicatively coupled to a mobile network; an Operator Billing Server, wherein the Operator Billing Server is communicatively coupled to the Cloud Server via the mobile network; and the Operator SMSC Server, wherein the Operator SMCS server is connected to the Cloud Server via the mobile network. (Fig. 2, Paragraphs 72-75 – Fig. 2 and descriptions thereof shows a cloud server coupled to a mobile network, a billing platform of the MNO network coupled to the could server and an SMCS server of the MNO network connected to the cloud server)
With respect to claim 16, Celik teaches the system of claim 15, further comprising a first mobile device comprising a first SIM card and a digital assistant, wherein the first mobile device is communicatively coupled to a mobile network. (Paragraph 9, 75, 90 – subscriber mobile device uses a digital application to assist in the steps of receiving the content messages. The application may be installed on a SIM card of the mobile device.)
With respect to claim 17, Celik teaches the system of claim 15, wherein the Operator SMSC Server further comprises a SMSC short code. (Paragraph 75 – short code is used with the SMSC)
With respect to claim 18, Celik teaches the system of claim 15, wherein the Cloud Server is configured to communicate with a SIM application residing on a SIM card in a mobile device. (Paragraph 9, 75, 90 – subscriber mobile device uses a digital application to assist in the steps of receiving the content messages. The application may be installed on a SIM card of the mobile device.)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Celik in view of US 2010/0179991 by Lorch et al. (Lorch).
With respect to claim 12, Celik teaches the method of claim 11, but does not disclose further comprising the step of sending a request to charge the first mobile device for the Xpression to the Operator SMSC server.
However, requesting a charge for a mobile device service is well known in the art. For example, Lorch teaches charging a mobile device for use a messaging service (Paragraph 335, 440, 441, 15 – in relation to sending special messages, a user may be charged based on a number of different variations, e.g. per usage etc).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the mobile device of Celik be request for charge for the uses of a messaging service as in Lorch. Using a well known charging technique to provide compensation for use of a provisioned service would have been obvious.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-10 are allowed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID R LAZARO whose telephone number is (571)272-3986. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4:30.
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, Emmanuel Moise can be reached at 571-272-3865. 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.
/DAVID R LAZARO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2455
Prosecution Insights