DETAILED ACTION
In the response filed October 10, 2025, the Applicant amended claims 1-8 and added claims 9-12. Claims 1-12 are pending in the current application.
Notice of 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 arguments for claims 1-12 with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection have been considered but are unpersuasive. Applicant argues that the claims are not directed to a judicial exception. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Here, under broadest reasonable interpretation, the steps describe or set-forth messaging with a user in order to perform a transaction between two entities, which amounts to commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations). These limitations therefore fall within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” subject matter grouping of abstract ideas.
The requirement to execute the claimed steps/functions using “at least one tangible, non-transitory computer-readable medium on which are stored instructions that, when executed by one or more processing devices, enable the one or more processing devices to perform a method,” (claims 1 and 6), is equivalent to adding the words “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. These limitations therefore do not qualify as “significantly more.” See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Viewing the additional limitations in combination also shows that they fail to ensure the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. When considered as an ordered combination, the additional components of the claims add nothing that is not already present when considered separately, and thus simply append the abstract idea with words equivalent to “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. When considered as an ordered combination, the additional components of the claims add nothing that is not already present when considered separately. Applicant’s arguments remain unpersuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection is hereby maintained.
Applicant’s arguments for claims 1-12 with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 102/103 rejections have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the combination of references being used in the current rejection.
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 1-12 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 “send messages over a short messaging service (SMS)” in line 5 and “over the SMS” in lines 6, 8, and 18. Claim 6 recites the limitation “send messages over a short messaging service (SMS)” in line 5 and “over the SMS” in lines 6, 8, and 20. As the claim merely recites the technology, it is unclear as to what the limitations “over a short messaging service (SMS)” and “over the SMS” are referring to. These limitations in the claim need to include the structure in which such messages are sent (e.g., SMS gateway, etc.) as SMS is a type of technology and the network is required to send such messages. As such, the claim is indefinite for failing to distinctly claim the invention. For purposes of examination, the claim limitation “the SMS” is treated as the SMS network as this appears to be Applicant’s intent.
Claims 2-5, 9, and 11 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on independent claim 1.
Claims 7, 8, 10, and 12 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on independent claim 6.
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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1-8 are drawn to mediums, which is within the four statutory categories (e.g., a process, a machine). (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A – Prong One: In prong one of step 2A, the claims are analyzed to evaluate whether they recite a judicial exception.
Claim 1 recites/describes the following steps:
“providing… a contact SMS number;”
“receiving… a message directed to the contact SMS number and including a request for a product-or-service-order transaction having at least one characteristic;”
“sorting the request according to the at least one characteristic;”
“in response to the sorting, choosing a transaction-fulfillment entity to which to route the sorted request;”
“routing,…the sorted request to the chosen transaction-fulfillment entity;”
“receiving … a response to the request;”
“directing the received response to the device SMS number;”
Claim 6 recites/describes the following steps:
“providing… a first contact SMS number of a plurality of contact SMS numbers;”
“receiving… a message directed to the first contact SMS number and including a request for ordering and purchasing a good or a service;”
“sorting the request according to the first contact SMS number;”
“in response to the sorting, choosing a first order-and-purchase-transaction-fulfillment entity of a plurality of order-and-purchase-transaction-fulfillment entities to which to route the sorted request;”
“routing,…the sorted request to the chosen transaction-fulfillment entity;”
“receiving … a response to the routed request;”
“directing the received response to the phone number;”
These steps, under broadest reasonable interpretation, describe or set-forth messaging with a user in order to perform a transaction between two entities, which amounts to commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations). These limitations therefore fall within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” subject matter grouping of abstract ideas.
As such, the Examiner concludes that claim 1 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A – Prong One: YES).
Each of the depending claims 2-5 and 7-12 likewise recite/describe these steps (by incorporation - and therefore also recite limitations that fall within this subject matter grouping of abstract ideas), and these claims are therefore determined to recite an abstract idea under the same analysis. Any elements recited in a dependent claim that are not specifically identified/addressed by the Examiner under step 2A (prong two) or step 2B of this analysis shall be understood to be an additional part of the abstract idea recited by that particular claim.
Step 2A – Prong Two:
The claims recite the additional elements/limitations of: “at least one tangible, non-transitory computer-readable medium,” “one or more processing devices,” (claims 1 and 6); “electronically to a remote electronic device associated with a device SMS number, configured to send messages over a short messaging service (SMS), and configured to receive messages directed to the device SMS number over the SMS,” “from the remote electronic device over the SMS,” “electronically from the chosen transaction-fulfillment entity,” “transmitting, electronically over the SMS, the directed response to the remote electronic device,” (claim 1); “electronically to a remote smartphone associated with a phone number, configured to send messages over a short messaging service (SMS), and configured to receive messages directed to the phone number over the SMS,” “from the remote smartphone over the SMS,” “electronically from the first order-and-purchase-transaction-fulfillment entity,” “transmitting, electronically over the SMS, the directed response to the remote smartphone,” (claim 6).
The requirement to execute the claimed steps/functions using “at least one tangible, non-transitory computer-readable medium,” “one or more processing devices,” (claims 1 and 6); “electronically to a remote electronic device associated with a device SMS number, configured to send messages over a short messaging service (SMS), and configured to receive messages directed to the device SMS number over the SMS,” “from the remote electronic device over the SMS,” “electronically from the chosen transaction-fulfillment entity,” “transmitting, electronically over the SMS, the directed response to the remote electronic device,” (claim 1); “electronically to a remote smartphone associated with a phone number, configured to send messages over a short messaging service (SMS), and configured to receive messages directed to the phone number over the SMS,” “from the remote smartphone over the SMS,” “electronically from the first order-and-purchase-transaction-fulfillment entity,” “transmitting, electronically over the SMS, the directed response to the remote smartphone,” (claim 6), is equivalent to adding the words “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. These limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Remaining dependent claims 2-5 and 7-12 either recite the same additional elements as noted above or fail to recite any additional elements (in which case, note prong one analysis as set forth above – those claims are further part of the abstract idea as identified by the Examiner for each respective dependent claim).
The Examiner has therefore determined that the additional elements, or combination of additional elements, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A – Prong two: NO).
Step 2B:
As discussed above in “Step 2A – Prong 2,” the requirement to execute the claimed steps/functions using “at least one tangible, non-transitory computer-readable medium,” “one or more processing devices,” (claims 1 and 6); “electronically to a remote electronic device associated with a device SMS number, configured to send messages over a short messaging service (SMS), and configured to receive messages directed to the device SMS number over the SMS,” “from the remote electronic device over the SMS,” “electronically from the chosen transaction-fulfillment entity,” “transmitting, electronically over the SMS, the directed response to the remote electronic device,” (claim 1); “electronically to a remote smartphone associated with a phone number, configured to send messages over a short messaging service (SMS), and configured to receive messages directed to the phone number over the SMS,” “from the remote smartphone over the SMS,” “electronically from the first order-and-purchase-transaction-fulfillment entity,” “transmitting, electronically over the SMS, the directed response to the remote smartphone,” (claim 6), is equivalent to adding the words “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. These limitations therefore do not qualify as “significantly more.” See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Viewing the additional limitations in combination also shows that they fail to ensure the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. When considered as an ordered combination, the additional components of the claims add nothing that is not already present when considered separately, and thus simply append the abstract idea with words equivalent to “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer.
Remaining dependent claims 2-5 and 7-12 either recite the same additional elements as noted above or fail to recite any additional elements (in which case, note prong one analysis as set forth above – those claims are further part of the abstract idea as identified by the Examiner for each respective dependent claim).
The Examiner has therefore determined that no additional element, or combination of additional claims elements is/are sufficient to ensure the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea identified above (Step 2B: NO).
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 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.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Corner et al. (US 2014/0235197 A1), hereinafter Corner, in view of Tolcher (US 2015/0142906 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Corner discloses at least one computer-readable medium on which are stored instructions that, when executed by one or more processing devices (Par. [0045], [0046], [0048], computer systems includes a processor), enable the one or more processing devices to perform a method, the method comprising the steps of:
providing, electronically to a remote electronic device associated with a device SMS number, configured to send messages over a short messaging service (SMS), and configured to receive messages directed to the device SMS number over the SMS (Par. [0029], The SMS gateway 30 receives the fulfillment request text message 24 from the mobile phone 20 via the short code provider 18 over an SMS network), a contact SMS number (Par. [0026], [0029], The fulfillment request text message 24 includes “CC5p' and is transmitted to a short code “12345’ and is transmitted from a Mobile Subscriber Integrated Services Digital Network-Number (MSISDN, or phone number) of the mobile phone 20);
receiving, electronically from the chosen transaction-fulfillment entity, a response to the routed request (Par. [0036], The Success text message 70 being transmitted includes information about the charge that has been entered in the accounts database 62 and the fulfillment request text message 24 received by the server call module 38 in the charge 56. In the present example the success text message 70 includes text indicating that an amount of £5 was charged for the consumer to play the SEGA arcade game).
directing the received response to the device SMS number; and transmitting, electronically over the SMS, the directed response to the remote electronic device (Par. [0036], The Success text message 70 being transmitted includes information about the charge that has been entered in the accounts database 62 and the fulfillment request text message 24 received by the server call module 38 in the charge 56. In the present example the success text message 70 includes text indicating that an amount of £5 was charged for the consumer to play the SEGA arcade game).
Corner does not explicitly disclose receiving, from the remote electronic device over the SMS, a message directed to the contact SMS number and including a request for a product-or-service-order transaction having at least one characteristic; sorting the request according to the at least one characteristic; in response to the sorting, choosing a transaction-fulfillment entity to which to route the sorted request; and routing, electronically, the sorted request to the chosen transaction-fulfillment entity.
Tolcher teaches receiving, from the remote electronic device over the SMS, a message directed to the contact SMS number and including a request for a product-or-service-order transaction (Par. [0141], The SMSc would, in this instance, need to construct a dialogue that resolves which one of the two registered retailers is to receive the order (through the onward relay of the received SMS message)) having at least one characteristic (Par. [0126], the SMS message will preferably be structured by the sender to include some form of predefined vendor-level code, i.e. a unique vendor-identifying code such as #retailer name, to reflect the fact that the buyer wishes to register for on-line purchases with a particular retailer cross-referenced to the inserted predefined code);
sorting the request according to the at least one characteristic; in response to the sorting, choosing a transaction-fulfillment entity to which to route the sorted request (Par. [0130], a specific, valid vendor-level code contained in the SMS message and cross-checkable against a listing of current stored vendor level codes for vendors subscribing to the ordering service); and
routing, electronically, the sorted request to the chosen transaction-fulfillment entity (Par. [0126], Each vendor-identifying code will therefore typically include a keyword or a code unique to the vendor, with the vendor-identifying code allowing onward routing from the SMSc to an appropriate server. As indicated above, the server may be an administration server or a retailer's server, but in either case at servers (individual or collectively) configured to run code that registers the user and ultimately provides order fulfillment and deliverables (whether goods or services).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the SMS system of Corner to include the image messaging abilities of Tolcher as a need exists for more convenient text messaging protocols (Tolcher, Par. [0006]). 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, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 2, Corner discloses wherein the at least one characteristic comprises a keyword indicating the type of transaction requested (Par. [0026], The text message “CC5p” includes a merchant keyword component “CC” and a transaction details component “5p”; Par. [0036], In the present example the success text message 70 includes text indicating that an amount of £5 was charged for the consumer to play the SEGA arcade game). Corner does not explicitly disclose wherein the at least one characteristic comprises a keyword indicating the type of product-or-service-order transaction requested. Tolcher teaches wherein the at least one characteristic comprises a keyword indicating the type of product-or-service-order transaction requested (Par. [0106], The objective of the inspection is to look for and identify 608 stored trigger words or trigger images within the message, e.g. “buy for me”, and if these are present then selectively to pass 610 the message to the administrator 16 for further processing and acquisition of an order for goods or a service). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the SMS system of Corner to include the image messaging abilities of Tolcher as a need exists for more convenient text messaging protocols (Tolcher, Par. [0006]). 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, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 3, Corner does not explicitly disclose wherein the characteristic comprises an image indicating the type of product-or-service-order transaction requested. Tolcher teaches wherein the characteristic comprises an image indicating the type of product-or-service-order transaction requested (Par. [0106], The objective of the inspection is to look for and identify 608 stored trigger words or trigger images within the message, e.g. “buy for me”, and if these are present then selectively to pass 610 the message to the administrator 16 for further processing and acquisition of an order for goods or a service). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the SMS system of Corner to include the image messaging abilities of Tolcher as a need exists for more convenient text messaging protocols (Tolcher, Par. [0006]). 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, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 4, Corner discloses wherein receiving the message from the remote device includes receiving the message without a code associated with the request (Examiner’s note, “code” is understood to define a PIN number or an authorizing/authenticating/identifying information other than the customer’s phone number; Par. [0026], The text message “CC5p” includes a merchant keyword component “CC” and a transaction details component “5p”; Par. [0036], In the present example the success text message 70 includes text indicating that an amount of £5 was charged for the consumer to play the SEGA arcade game - user enters request without any PIN number or an authorizing/authenticating/identifying information other than the customer’s phone number).
Regarding claim 5, Corner discloses receiving the message from the remote device includes receiving the message without a personal identification number associated with the request (Par. [0026], [0029], The fulfillment request text message 24 includes “CC5p' and is transmitted to a short code “12345’ and is transmitted from a Mobile Subscriber Integrated Services Digital Network-Number (MSISDN, or phone number) of the mobile phone 20).
Regarding claim 6, Corner discloses at least one tangible, non-transitory computer-readable medium on which are stored instructions that, when executed by one or more processing devices (Par. [0045], [0046], [0048], computer systems includes a processor), enable the one or more processing devices to perform a method, the method comprising the steps of:
providing, electronically to a remote smartphone associated with a phone number, configured to send messages over a short messaging service (SMS), and configured to receive messages directed to the phone number over the SMS (Par. [0029], The SMS gateway 30 receives the fulfillment request text message 24 from the mobile phone 20 via the short code provider 18 over an SMS network), a first contact SMS number of a plurality of contact SMS numbers (Par. [0026], [0029], The fulfillment request text message 24 includes “CC5p' and is transmitted to a short code “12345’ and is transmitted from a Mobile Subscriber Integrated Services Digital Network-Number (MSISDN, or phone number) of the mobile phone 20);
receiving, electronically from the first order-and-purchase-transaction-fulfillment entity, a response to the routed request (Par. [0036], The Success text message 70 being transmitted includes information about the charge that has been entered in the accounts database 62 and the fulfillment request text message 24 received by the server call module 38 in the charge 56. In the present example the success text message 70 includes text indicating that an amount of £5 was charged for the consumer to play the SEGA arcade game).
directing the received response to the phone number; and transmitting, electronically over the SMS, the directed response to the remote smartphone (Par. [0036], The Success text message 70 being transmitted includes information about the charge that has been entered in the accounts database 62 and the fulfillment request text message 24 received by the server call module 38 in the charge 56. In the present example the success text message 70 includes text indicating that an amount of £5 was charged for the consumer to play the SEGA arcade game).
Corner does not explicitly disclose receiving, from the remote smartphone over the SMS, a message directed to the first contact SMS number and including a request for ordering and purchasing a good or a service; sorting the request according to the first contact SMS number; in response to the sorting, choosing a first order-and-purchase-transaction-fulfillment entity of a plurality of order-and-purchase-transaction-fulfillment entities to which to route the sorted request; routing, electronically, the sorted request to the chosen transaction-fulfillment entity.
Tolcher teaches receiving, from the remote smartphone over the SMS, a message directed to the first contact SMS number and including a request for ordering and purchasing a good or a service (Par. [0141], The SMSc would, in this instance, need to construct a dialogue that resolves which one of the two registered retailers is to receive the order (through the onward relay of the received SMS message)) having at least one characteristic (Par. [0126], the SMS message will preferably be structured by the sender to include some form of predefined vendor-level code, i.e. a unique vendor-identifying code such as #retailer name, to reflect the fact that the buyer wishes to register for on-line purchases with a particular retailer cross-referenced to the inserted predefined code);
sorting the request according to the first contact SMS number; in response to the sorting, choosing a first order-and-purchase-transaction-fulfillment entity of a plurality of order-and-purchase-transaction-fulfillment entities to which to route the sorted request (Par. [0130], a specific, valid vendor-level code contained in the SMS message and cross-checkable against a listing of current stored vendor level codes for vendors subscribing to the ordering service); and
routing, electronically, the sorted request to the chosen transaction-fulfillment entity (Par. [0126], Each vendor-identifying code will therefore typically include a keyword or a code unique to the vendor, with the vendor-identifying code allowing onward routing from the SMSc to an appropriate server. As indicated above, the server may be an administration server or a retailer's server, but in either case at servers (individual or collectively) configured to run code that registers the user and ultimately provides order fulfillment and deliverables (whether goods or services).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the SMS system of Corner to include the image messaging abilities of Tolcher as a need exists for more convenient text messaging protocols (Tolcher, Par. [0006]). 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, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 7, Corner discloses wherein receiving the message from the remote smartphone includes receiving the message without a code associated with the request (Examiner’s note, “code” is understood to define a PIN number or an authorizing/authenticating/identifying information other than the customer’s phone number; Par. [0026], The text message “CC5p” includes a merchant keyword component “CC” and a transaction details component “5p”; Par. [0036], In the present example the success text message 70 includes text indicating that an amount of £5 was charged for the consumer to play the SEGA arcade game - user enters request without any PIN number or an authorizing/authenticating/identifying information other than the customer’s phone number).
Regarding claim 5, Corner discloses receiving the message from the remote smartphone includes receiving the message without a personal identification number associated with the request (Par. [0026], [0029], The fulfillment request text message 24 includes “CC5p' and is transmitted to a short code “12345’ and is transmitted from a Mobile Subscriber Integrated Services Digital Network-Number (MSISDN, or phone number) of the mobile phone 20).
Regarding claim 9, Corner does not explicitly disclose wherein the method further comprises associating the contact SMS number with the chosen transaction-fulfillment entity. Tolcher teaches wherein the method further comprises associating the contact SMS number with the chosen transaction-fulfillment entity (Par. [0141]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the SMS system of Corner to include the image messaging abilities of Tolcher as a need exists for more convenient text messaging protocols (Tolcher, Par. [0006]). 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, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 10, Corner does not explicitly disclose wherein the method further comprises associating the first contact SMS number with first order-and-purchase-transaction-fulfillment entity. Tolcher teaches wherein the method further comprises associating the first contact SMS number with first order-and-purchase-transaction-fulfillment entity (Par. [0126]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the SMS system of Corner to include the image messaging abilities of Tolcher as a need exists for more convenient text messaging protocols (Tolcher, Par. [0006]). 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, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 11, Corner does not explicitly disclose wherein the method further comprises associating the device SMS number with a user of the remote electronic device. Tolcher teaches wherein the method further comprises associating the device SMS number with a user of the remote electronic device (Par. [0050], The unique sender identity is, however, generally tied to and recorded against the mobile device address or phone number and could, subject to access, simply be a unique SIM card number or an IP address or social networking identity). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the SMS system of Corner to include the image messaging abilities of Tolcher as a need exists for more convenient text messaging protocols (Tolcher, Par. [0006]). 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, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 12, Corner does not explicitly disclose wherein the method further comprises associating the phone number with a user of the smartphone. Tolcher teaches wherein the method further comprises associating the device SMS number with a user of the remote electronic device (Par. [0050], The unique sender identity is, however, generally tied to and recorded against the mobile device address or phone number and could, subject to access, simply be a unique SIM card number or an IP address or social networking identity). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the SMS system of Corner to include the image messaging abilities of Tolcher as a need exists for more convenient text messaging protocols (Tolcher, Par. [0006]). 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, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
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 Patrick Kim whose telephone number is (571)272-8619. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9AM - 5PM 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, Resha 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.
/Patrick Kim/Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/RESHA DESAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3628