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 .
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, 2 and 4-9 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the router" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites “at least one designated mediating channel/bot module”. The claim is dependent upon claim 1, which previously recited designated mediating channel/bot modules. It is unclear if applicant intends to be referencing the previously recited modules or intends to recite a different, additional module.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses 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 limitation(s) is/are: “channel/bot modules ” and “mediating module”.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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)(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.
Claims 1, 2 and 4-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0366478 to Mohammed et al.
As concerns claim 1, a mediating system for communicating between at least two users of an instant messaging platform, implemented by one or more processors (0008; 0122; 0127) operatively coupled to a non-transitory computer readable storage device (0008; 0122; 0127), which comprises:
a plurality of designated mediating channel/bot modules (0004-bot; 0008-modules; 0068-bot) having at least one designated address (0087-identifier) configured for communicating with each user (0004-user; 0007-communications between users) through an instant messaging platform (0005-platform; 0031-messaging session), including a first mediating module (0004-bot; 0007; 0008-modules; 0068-bot; Fig. 1) intermediate between an instant chat platform of the first user (Fig. 1, users 102, plurality of users shown thus a “first” user) and the router (0007-message relay; 0021) and a second mediating module (0004-bot; 0007; 0008-modules; 0068-bot; Fig. 1, 2C, 3 and 4, multiple bot “modules” 110, 116, thus a first and second) intermediate between the router and an instant chat platform of the second user (Fig. 1, users 102, plurality of users shown thus a “second” user);
at least one router (0007-message relay; 0021; Fig. 4-214R; 0099-0100-214R-message relay) configured to exchange communication between the first mediating module (0008-code modules) and the second mediating module (0008-code modules) or second user (0004-communication between a user and a bot) and identifying destination addresses (0061-address lookup database, network address) of users by applying business rules (0022-reject relay based on identifier, signature) based on the identified destination using a routing/map table (0013-look-up table; 0014-cryptographic database; 0018; 0022-identifer, message relay; 0061);
wherein messages are transferred between the users by at least two mediating channel/bot modules (0004-bot; 0008-modules; 0068-bot; Fig. 1, 2C, 3 and 4-multiple bot “modules” shown) though the at least one router (0007-message relay);
wherein the users communicate only through the mediating system, using the at least one designated address, maintaining users addresses private (0007-anonymized user identifier; 0033).
As concerns claims 2 and 11, the invention of claims 1 and 10 wherein the mediating entity/mediating channel/bot module further process said communication for identifying destination (0007-user identifier destination) and context of message (0093-intent of message).
As concerns claim 12, the invention of claim 10 wherein the mediating entity comprises at least two mediating modules: a first mediating module (0004-bot; 0008-modules; 0068-bot) to intermediate between the instant chat platform for the first user and the router (Fig. 1, 2C, 3 and 4) and a second mediating module (0004-bot; 0008-modules; 0068-bot) intermediate between the router and the instant chat platform for the second user or a business bot (0004-bot; 0008-modules; 0068-bot; Fig. 1, 2C, 3 and 4 ).
As concerns claims 4 and 13, the invention of claims 1 and 10 wherein at least one designated mediating channel/bot module is configured for processing the request to identify functionality (0093; 0095-intent) and destination (0087-identifier; 0059; 0061; 0082) and chatting (0004-communication between a user and a bot; 0091-conversational interface) with the user for receiving required destination information (0093).
As concerns claims 5 and 14, the invention of claims 1 and 10 wherein a response process that includes analysing context of content, to check if the required information is provided based on request message (0092-0098).
As concerns claims 6 and 15, the invention of claims 1 and 10 further comprising at least one designated mediating channel/bot module that is configured to keep chatting with an agent/user if necessary (0094-intent recognition, 0097-0098-chatting until intent determined; 0091-conversational interface), until a predetermined amount of information is received (0094-0097).
As concerns claims 7 and 16, the invention of claims 1 and 10 wherein a response process includes checking quality of response matching to request details (0095-intent recognition, is a “quality” check for the process to determine a next step; 0096-dialogue manager).
As concerns claims 8 and 17, the mediating system of claims 1 and 10 wherein at least one designated mediating channel/bot module/mediating entity is further configured to save the communication session chat information (0057-store messages).
As concerns claims 9 and 18, the invention of claims 1 and 10 further configured to check content of messages and/or response, to block said messages and/or response based on pre-defined rules (0003; 0018; 0061-authentication, allow communication) or generate an alert.
As concerns claim 10, a method for mediating between at least two end users of an instant messaging platform having at least a first mediating module of a mediating entity and a second mediating module of the mediating entity, implemented by one or more processors (0008; 0122; 0127) operatively coupled to a non-transitory computer readable storage device (0008; 0122; 0127), on which are stored modules of instruction code that when executed cause the one or more processors to perform said method comprising the steps of:
a. receiving a request message from a first user (0004-user) through an instant chat platform (0005-platform; 0031-messaging session) of the first user using a designated instant messaging platform address (0087-identifier; 0059; 0061; 0082) of the mediating entity;
b. processing said request message by the first mediating module (0004-bot; 0008-modules; 0068-bot) of the mediating entity, for identifying a destination corresponding to a second user (0087-identifier; 0059; 0061; 0082; 0013-look-up table; 0014-cryptographic database; 0018) and message metadata (0100);
c. sending a message with meta data to a router (0007-message relay) of the mediating entity;
d. receiving/identifying request destination address (0087-identifier; 0059; 0061; 0082; 0013-look-up table; 0014-cryptographic database; 0018)
e. forwarding (0087-identifier; 0059; 0061; 0082; 0013-look-up table; 0014-cryptographic database; 0018) the request message using instant message (Fig. 5B) to the second user by the second mediating module (0004-bot; 0008-modules; 0068-bot) of the mediating entity;
f. processing a response and forwarding the response (0011-response, transmit to message relay) to the router by the second mediating module of the mediating entity;
g. identifying a response destination address (0011-user identifier) and sending the response (0011-response)
h. forwarding the response to the first user (0011-transmit to user), using an instant chat platform of the second user.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 29, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant’s arguments are directed to newly amended claim limitations that have been addressed in the rejections cited above.
The applicant argues Mohammed fails to disclose independent chat functionality for each module, further stating Mohammed does not disclose two separate mediating modules where each independently chats with its respective user’s platform.
The claims are given the broadest reasonable interpretation and limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. The claims are interpreted in view of 112 sixth paragraph and the applicant’s “modules” are encompassed by computer readable storage device with instruction code. Mohammed discloses at least the equivalent sufficient structure, thus can perform the same claimed functions (see rejection above).
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “configured to independently chat”; “each mediating module operates as an independent chat agent that: 1. Maintains its own chat session with its respective user's instant messaging platform; 2. Processes messages independently to understand context and requirements; 3. Engages in autonomous dialogue to gather necessary information; 4. Makes independent decisions about message processing before routing; Each mediating module has its own "intelligence" and chat capability, functioning as an autonomous intermediary that can: ask clarifying questions to its user; gather additional information through chat dialogue; process and understand message context; and make routing decisions based on the chat interaction”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
The applicant argues Mohammed’s “Bot” is not equivalent to the claimed mediating modules, further stating these are not disclosed as: independent chat agents on both sides of a router; modules capable of maintaining separate, autonomous chat dialogues; entities that can independently process and chat with users before routing.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (independent chat agents on both sides of a router; modules capable of maintaining separate, autonomous chat dialogues; entities that can independently process and chat with users before routing) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
The applicant argues the citations refer to look-up tables and cryptographic databases for authentication, NOT business rules applied to routing decisions.
Claim 1 recites “at least one router configured to exchange communication between the first mediating module and the second mediating module or second user and identifying destination addresses of users by applying business rules based on the identified destination using a routing/map table.”
The claims are given the broadest reasonable interpretation and limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. The claims recite “applying business rules”. This is interpreted as “applying” rules, wherein “business” is merely a label and does not further limit the applying rules, as set forth in the claims. The “applying rules” is based on “the identified destination” “using” a “routing/map” table.
Mohammed discloses at least paragraphs 0010-0013, wherein the “map table” can be disclosed by the “look-up table” wherein the table comprises user identifiers that is used for message relay, paragraph 0016 disclose mapping users and bots, paragraph 0033 disclose a target bot for exchanging communication from a first user bot; paragraph 0061 disclose an address lookup database thus identifying destination addresses.
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 JOHN B WALSH whose telephone number is (571)272-7063. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-3:30 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Christopher 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.
/JOHN B WALSH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2451
Prosecution Insights