DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on September 15, 2025, has been entered.
In response, the Applicant amended claims 1, 9, and 14. Claims 1-14 are pending and currently under consideration for patentability.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Response to Amendments and Arguments
v Applicant’s arguments, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-14 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered and are not persuasive. The rejections of claims 1-14 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been maintained accordingly.
Applicant specifically argues on pages 8-9 of the remarks that that
“The Applicant respectfully asserts that amended Claim 1 is not directed toward an abstract idea. Amended Claim 1 focuses on a method that significantly enhances message distribution within a network environment. The claimed invention introduces concrete technological advancements and practical applications that distinguish it from being merely abstract. Unlike traditional systems that rely on single, fixed communication endpoints, the claimed method enables users to dynamically select multiple communication channels for receiving messages (e.g., email, SMS, push notifications). This flexibility in selecting communication channels represents a clear technical advancement, as it ensures messages are delivered effectively according to user preferences. The method of communication within a network environment demonstrates a tangible technological improvement. The present invention provides a technical improvement in the field of network-based message distribution systems. Specifically, it incorporates a computer- implemented method for dynamically selecting multiple communication channels through which messages are delivered to users, based on their stored preferences and real-time contextual data. Unlike conventional systems that deliver messages via fixed or manually configured channels, the claimed invention employs processor-executed logic to automatically identify, adjust, and optimize delivery paths for each user. This approach results in improved delivery efficiency, enhanced user targeting, and reduced failure rates in multi-user environments. By addressing a technological problem with a technological solution, the invention improves the functionality of the message distribution system itself and transcends the mere implementation of an abstract idea on a generic computer. As such, amended Claim 1 should be considered a technology-based method under 35 U.S.C. 101.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s first argument.
Applicant’s argument is again incommensurate with what is actually claimed. The claims do not require “email, SMS, push notifications”, nor do they required “dynamically selecting multiple communication channels through which messages are delivered to users, based on their stored preferences and real-time contextual data”. The identifying of the multiple channels is dynamically “by the first user”, and not based on any real-time contextual data. The claims do not employ “processor-executed logic to automatically identify, adjust, and optimize delivery paths for each user”. The claimed invention merely involves receiving a selection of a plurality of communication options, storing this selection in storage, identifying the selection options from storage, and sending the message to each of the plurality of selection communication options.. The claims also merely involve “identifying…multiple communication channels dynamically selected from the plurality of communication options by the first user” (i.e., they are selected by the user) and enabling some “dynamically selected multiple communication channels function…based on the first user permission”, neither of which constitute processor-executed logic to automatically identify, adjust, and optimize delivery paths for each user. Because Applicant’s argument is incommensurate with what is actually claimed, it therefore cannot be persuasive.
Further, Examiner is not persuaded with respect to the alleged improvements asserted by Applicant. The specification “need not explicitly set forth the improvement”; instead, the specification must simply “describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art.” MPEP § 2106.04(d)(1). However, as explained previously/below, the claimed subject matter related to these features lacks sufficient written description support in the disclosure. Specifically, Applicants as-filed disclosure fails to provide written description support for i) sending a message received from a second user to a first user (a subscriber of the second user) including sending the message to each of a plurality of communication options selected by the first user, ii) the first user being one of a plurality of users who are subscribers of the second user, which is utilized in the “identifying…the subscribers of the second user as recipients” and “sending the message to the subscribers of the second user” steps/function, or iii) receiving, from the first user, subscriber information indicative of one or more other users to be followed by the first user; storing the subscriber information in the storage and similarly “displaying the user profile and the user profile integrated subscribe control for enabling the users of the network to subscribe to the profile associated with each of the plurality of users of the network in the event of selecting subscribe control. It therefore follows that the specification fails to describe the claimed invention such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing any of the improvements alleged by Applicant. Applicant’s argument is therefore not persuasive.
Examiner notes that the newly added limitations of “enabling the dynamically selected multiple communication channels function…based on the first user permissions” also lacks sufficient written description support in the disclosure (see rejection below). It therefore follows that the specification fails to describe the claimed invention such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing any of the improvements alleged by Applicant. Applicant’s argument is therefore not persuasive. Examiner further notes that even if Applicant’s disclosure did support this particular embodiment, identifying selected channels and broadly “enabling the…function, including…alerts, based on the…permissions” does not amount to recitation of a solution. This amounts to a high abstract recitation of an idea.
Examiner further notes that even if Applicant’s disclosure did support this particular embodiment, Examiner would still not be persuaded that the claimed invention would be directed to a technical improvement. “Ensur(ing) messages are delivered effectively according to user preferences” is a subjective and non-technical improvement/advantage (i.e., a non-technical improvement to an abstract idea itself). There is also nothing to suggest that the process “results in improved delivery efficiency, enhanced user targeting, and reduced failure rates in multi-user environments”. These alleged improvements are asserted in a conclusory manner, and such improvements would not be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art in light of Applicant’s disclosure.
Applicant specifically argues on pages 9-10 of the remarks that that
“The present claims highlight an improvement in computer-related technology, particularly in the domain of user-to-user communication within a computer network. The claimed system enables users to dynamically select multiple communication channels for receiving messages, such as email, SMS, and push notifications, as detailed in Para [000106]. This functionality introduces flexibility in communication, allowing users to tailor their preferences to achieve more efficient and adaptable message delivery. The amended step in Claim 1 further strengthens this system by incorporating the storage of a user profile associated with the registered user account of each user in a data repository… This enhancement provides a secure and efficient way to manage user information, enabling real-time updates and ensuring that users can manage their profiles and subscriptions seamlessly. The centralized storage not only improves the overall system performance but also allows it to scale effectively to accommodate a growing number of users and interactions… This includes an auto content alert system wherein users can select taxonomy, sources, source names, and services for receiving automated alerts. Such functionality aligns with the concept of integrated subscribe controls within user profiles, enabling users to customize notification and subscription preferences in real time. These controls ensure users receive relevant and timely information by adjusting settings interactively… the system facilitates real-time management of subscriber information, offering immediate updates and minimizing delays commonly experienced in traditional systems. This real-time capability ensures users are provided with the most current and relevant information, addressing a key challenge in existing network communication environments. By detailing these specific technological enhancements, the invention demonstrates a substantial improvement in computer-related technology, aligning with the requirements of the second prong. The applicant asserts that the invention integrates the abstract idea into a practical application by reversing the network configuration so that recipients direct the messages, providing a novel and technologically advanced approach.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s second argument.
First, as discussed above with respect to Applicant’s first argument, Applicant’s argument again comprises multiple assertions that are incommensurate with what is actually claimed. The claims do not require or involve “centralized storage”, “an auto content alert system wherein users can select taxonomy, sources, source names, and services for receiving automated alerts”, or “real-time management” of anything. There is no requirement for the profile to be stored in “centralized storage” that somehow “allows for real-time updates” or “ensures that users can easily manage their profiles and subscriptions”. The claims merely require storing the selection of the plurality of communication options “in a storage” (e.g., some computer memory/storage) and storing a user profile “in a data repository” (e.g., some computer memory/storage). This amounts to a requirement to apply the abstract idea on a general-purpose computer. Furthermore, “improving overall user experience” is a subjective and non-technical improvement/advantage. Applicant’s argument that system performance is improved or that somehow storing the profile/selections in an unspecified computer memory somehow “allows the system to handle a growing number of users and their interactions without comprising performance” is entirely conclusory, and therefore cannot be persuasive. It should be noted that the claims do not require handling a growing number of users or their interactions. There is no suggestion that storing the profile/selections in computer memory somehow “allows users to customize their notifications and subscription preferences in real time”. Again, the requirement to store the selection of the plurality of communication options “in a storage” (e.g., some computer memory/storage) and to store a user profile “in a data repository” (e.g., some computer memory/storage) amounts to a requirement to apply the abstract idea on a general-purpose computer.
Second, as discussed above with respect to Applicant’s first argument, the claims recite multiple elements that lacks sufficient written description support in the disclosure. Specifically, Applicants as-filed disclosure fails to provide written description support for i) sending a message received from a second user to a first user (a subscriber of the second user) including sending the message to each of a plurality of communication options selected by the first user, ii) the first user being one of a plurality of users who are subscribers of the second user, which is utilized in the “identifying…the subscribers of the second user as recipients” and “sending the message to the subscribers of the second user” steps/function, or iii) receiving, from the first user, subscriber information indicative of one or more other users to be followed by the first user; storing the subscriber information in the storage and similarly “displaying the user profile and the user profile integrated subscribe control for enabling the users of the network to subscribe to the profile associated with each of the plurality of users of the network in the event of selecting subscribe control. It therefore follows that the specification fails to describe the claimed invention such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing any of the improvements alleged by Applicant. Applicant’s argument is therefore not persuasive.
Third, even if Applicant’s disclosure did support this particular embodiment, Examiner would still not be persuaded that the claimed invention would be directed to the alleged technical improvements of “more efficient…message delivery”, a more “a secure and efficient way to manage user information”, a solution that “improves the overall system performance… also allows it to scale effectively to accommodate a growing number of users and interactions”, or a system that allows for “minimizing delays commonly experienced in traditional systems”. These alleged improvements are asserted in a conclusory manner, and such improvements would not be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art in light of Applicant’s disclosure. It is unclear how efficiency or security of message delivery is provided for by enabling a user to select communication options and sending messages using the selected communication options. It is also unclear how delays are avoided simply by enabling a user to select communication options and sending messages using the selected communication options. Finally, “allowing users to tailor their preferences” is a subjective and non-technical improvement/advantage (i.e., a non-technical improvement to an abstract idea itself).
v Applicant’s arguments, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-14 under 35 U.S.C. §112, first paragraph have been fully considered and are not persuasive. The rejections of claims 1-14 under 35 U.S.C. §112, first paragraph, have been maintained accordingly.
Examiner notes that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board already found, with respect to parent US Application 15/053,889 in Interference Hearing 106,137), a variety of written description deficiencies for equivalent/similar limitations. These determinations are equally applicable to many of the argued limitations below.
Applicant specifically argues on page 11 of the remarks that
“While Figure 6 does not explicitly mention "HSNS1" in box 6J, 6J represents the first user's devices, such as a PDA or mobile device, which can select from multiple communication options for receiving messages. This clearly aligns with the feature in the claim that describes a first user's computing device selecting a plurality of communication options. Furthermore, 6A (Host Computer for HSNS) illustrates the first user's computing device, which is capable of interacting with communication tools like HSNM, HSNE, and Multi AI Agents, thereby facilitating the selection of communication options. Additionally, 6D (HSNOP) and 6E (third-party applications) further support the ability of the first user to choose from various communication methods. These elements of Figure 6 show that the first user can select communication options, which are then stored and used for message delivery. Thus, Figure 6 supports the claimed feature where the first user selects from a plurality of communication options for receiving messages, as outlined in the claim. We respectfully request that the Examiner reconsider the objection based on this clear support from the disclosure.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s first argument.
Even if 6J represented a first user’s plurality of devices (i.e., having a plurality of communication options?), if 6A were somehow the “first computing device of the first user” (as alleged by Applicant) which is somehow “capable of interacting with communication tools” and is shown as having an arrow to “6D – online browser for HSNOP” and “6E – HSNM & HSNEM with 3rd Party Apps via Plug-ins” nothing in this figure depicts or suggests “receiving, from a first computing device of a first user, a selection of a plurality of communication options for receiving messages”. The assertion that these arrows “support the ability of the first user to choose from various communication methods” is conclusory, and does not in fact demonstrate support for “receiving, from a first computing device of a first user, a selection of a plurality of communication options for receiving messages” or storing these selected communication options for subsequent use in message delivery.
Applicant specifically argues on page 12 of the remarks that
Applicant respectfully disagrees with the Examiner's statement that Figure 6 does not support the claim limitation stating "the first user is one of a plurality of users who are subscribers of a second user." As described in paragraph [000249], the system illustrates a protocol-based relationship among HumanServiceNet Subscribers (HSNS), HumanServiceNet channel nodes, and communication tools (HSNM, HSNE, HSNEM, and HSNOP). The same paragraph states: "Each of subscribers is essentially connected with every service and product procurement sources as illustrated in the FIG. 6 showing functional protocol based relationships of HumanServiceNet Subscriber (HSNS) with all HumanServiceNet channel nodes and various communication tools "
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s second argument.
The general statement that “(e)ach of subscribers is essentially connected with every service and product procurement sources as illustrated in the FIG. 6 showing functional protocol based relationships of HumanServiceNet Subscriber (HSNS) with all HumanServiceNet channel nodes and various communication tools” does not provide support for “receiving, from a first computing device of a first user, a selection of a plurality of communication options for receiving messages” or “the first user is one of a plurality of users who are subscribers of a second user”. It is generally unclear how or why a suggestion of a “protocol-based” relationship between HSNS and HSNM, HSNE, HSNEM, and HSNOP could be said to disclose this limitation.
Examiner notes that it is unclear what is meant by “the host computer (6A) Subscriber (HSNS)” in this paragraph, as nothing in 6A appears to correspond to “Subscriber HSNS”. Applicant alleges 6A to be the first computing device of the first user .
Applicant specifically argues on page 12 of the remarks that
Furthermore, the paragraph clearly mentions: "Selective Multi Services from Selective Multi (6P) Human Agents, Selective Multi Services from Selective (60) Brokers and Selective Multi Resources from Selective (6R) Subscribers of Personal Networks. This statement confirms that the subscriber (HSNS) is accessing services and resources from multiple sources, including other Subscribers of Personal Networks (6R). This shows that multiple users (like the one represented through 6A and its associated client devices 6J) are subscribing to or drawing services from other users identified in 6R. This establishes a subscriber relationship between the first user and the second user, as required by the claim”
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s third argument.
The suggestion that communications are facilitated using “selective multi resources” is unclear, especially in the context of using the “multi resources” to somehow facilitate communications. The suggestion that the “selective multi resources” used to facilitate the communications are “from selective (6R) Subscriber of Personal Networks” does not clarify the confusion. Furthermore, even if this statement shows that “the subscriber (HSNS) is accessing services and resources from multiple sources, including other subscribers...”, it is unclear how would this show support for “receiving, from a first computing device of a first user, a selection of a plurality of communication options for receiving messages” or “the first user is one of a plurality of users who are subscribers of a second user”. Further, Applicant’s arguments appear to now be suggesting that HSNS is the subscriber or “first user”. However, Applicant’s previous argument is that 6R - HSNS is a second user to whom the first user subscribes. Applicant’s appears to be switching how Fig. 6. should allegedly be interpreted.
Applicant specifically argues on pages 13-14 of the remarks that
Applicant respectfully disagrees with the Examiner's third argument and submits that the claimed features - "receiving, from a first computing device of a first user, a selection of a plurality of communication options for receiving messages" and "the first user is one of a plurality of users who are subscribers of a second user" - are supported by the disclosure, particularly in paragraph [00249] and Figure 6… This implies that the first user (through computing device 6A and client devices like 6J) is selecting communication resources from a broader set of available options, satisfying the claimed feature of receiving a selection of a plurality of communication options. Furthermore, the phrase "Selective Multi Resources from Selective (6R) Subscribers of Personal Networks" indicates the existence of a network of users (6R) who are organized in a structure such that communication with them can be facilitated selectively. This supports the idea that a user (c.g., associated with 6J) interacts with and subscribes to services or resources from a second user or network node, fitting the claim language that "the first user is one of a plurality of users who are subscribers of a second user." With regard to the Examiner's observation that 6A is not clearly marked as "Subscriber HSNS," Applicant points to the same paragraph [00249], which states: "6A illustrates a computer for HumanServiceNet Subscriber (HSNS)", thus confirming that 6A is indeed the computing device used by the first user (HSNS). The inclusion of devices like 6J (e.g., PDA, mobile, etc.) used by this HSNS user further supports the configuration in which the user may choose different communication options through the system. Therefore, the description and structure presented in paragraph [00249] and Figure 6 collectively demonstrate the relationship between the first user and the second user (6R), the use of computing device 6A, and the ability to select among multiple communication options via 6J. Applicant respectfully requests that the Examiner reconsider the rejection in light of this clarification and the identified written description support.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s fourth argument.
Specifically, Examiner disagrees that the quoted statement (“the host computer (6A) Subscriber (HSNS) is being installed with…providing Admin capability to the subscriber to facilitate communications using…Selective Multi Resource from Selective (6R) Subscriber of Personal Networks, using (6J) Multi client e.g., PDS, Mobile etc…” implies that the first user (through computing device 6A and client devices like 6J) is selecting communication resources from a broader set of available options. It only generally suggests selective resources from selective “Subscriber of Personal Networks” can be “facilitated” using multi client devices (e.g., PDS, Mobile..”). There is no disclosure that the system “receives from this first user a selection of a plurality of communication options for receiving messages” or “the first user is one of a plurality of users who are subscribers of a second user”.
The Examiner further disagrees that merely suggesting “the existence of a network of users (6R)” somehow suggests a “structure where communication with then can be facilitated selectively” or that the user “interacts with and subscribes to services or resources from a second user of a network node”. More specifically though, even this contested assertion of what this statement “suggests” or “implies” does not amount to sufficient support for “receiving, from a first computing device of a first user, a selection of a plurality of communication options for receiving messages” or “the first user is one of a plurality of users who are subscribers of a second user”.
Furthermore, even if 6J were a first user, if 6A was somehow the “first computing device of the first user” (as alleged by Applicant), and if 6R is a second user to whom the first user subscribes (and/or a or network of users, in general), nothing in this figure depicts or suggests “the first user is one of a plurality of users who are subscribers of a second user”. Examiner cannot find anything on Fig 6 to suggest there are other users who are subscribers to 6R or the same subscriber in a network of users represented by 6R.
Applicant specifically argues on page 15 of the remarks that
We respectfully disagree with the Examiner's objection regarding the claim element "storing the selection of the plurality of communication options in a storage." The Applicant asserts that the description and figures in the application provide clear and adequate support for the claimed feature. Specifically, Figure 6 shows that the system allows the subscriber to select from multiple communication options (6.J), which are then stored for future use in the system. As detailed in the specification, the system supports the storage of these selections in the HSN controller, which is part of a larger network infrastructure designed to manage and facilitate communication. In Figure 1, the HSN controller (1A) is described as the central network controller, which is responsible for regulating and managing the operations of the entire system. The HSN controller (1A) is in communication with various components, including the web database (1B) and other operational modules, which are used for storing data, including communication options. As stated in the specification, the web server (1B) within the HSN controller is used for managing and storing the data related to the communication options selected by the subscriber. This clearly supports the claim element "storing the selection of the plurality of communication options in a storage" as the system uses these components to store the data in a structured manner. Moreover, the arrows 6M and 1M in Figures 1 and 6 represent the relationship between the HSN controller and the communication tools, with the system facilitating the storing of communication options in a structured storage system. The Examiner's assertion that the elements and arrows in Figures 1 and 6 do not support the claim element is incorrect, as the system is clearly shown to be capable of storing communication options within the HSN controller and related components, which is consistent with the disclosure in the application.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s fifth argument.
First, Examiner disagrees with Applicant’s statement that “Figure 6 shows that the system allows the subscriber to select from multiple communication options (6.J), which are then stored for future use in the system”. Fig 6 may show that the system and/or a user may have different devices. However, as discussed above with respect to Applicant’s first four arguments, Fig 6 and paragraph [0249] do not support “receiving, from a first computing device of a first user, a selection of a plurality of communication options for receiving messages” or where “the first user is one of a plurality of users who are subscribers of a second user”.
Second, Examiner disagrees with Applicant’s conclusory statement that “HSN controller (1A) is in communication with various components, including the web database (1B) and other operational modules, which are used for storing data, including communication options” and “as stated in the specification, the web server (1B) within the HSN controller is used for managing and storing the data related to the communication options selected by the subscriber”. These are simply conclusory statements lacking any substantive analysis of what Fig 1 shows. The arrow 6M in Fig 6 is titled “selective Multi Services” and points to “Human Service Net (HSN)” in drawings 1A. Examiner assumes the corresponding arrow in Fig 1 is 1M, titled “Registration, HOS and Selective Multi Services”, which points to 1A (the “Human Service Net (HSN)”, aka the “Human Service net controller” or “HSN controller server” as mentioned in [0304] of the published disclosure). Element 1B is a “web database” in communication with 1A (the “Human Service Net (HSN)”, aka the “Human Service net controller” or “HSN controller server”). Nothing in this configuration of elements (6J, 1A, 1B) or corresponding arrows (6M and 1M) on Figures 1 and 6 provides written description support for the claim element " storing the selection of the plurality of communication options in a storage ", as asserted by Applicant.
Applicant specifically argues on page 17 of the remarks that that
“Paragraph [000151] clearly establishes that both subscribers and channel nodes are required to subscribe for communication utilities from the Human Service Net (HSN) controller server. The passage states: "Each of channel nodes are made to register at the Human service net controller server, and are need to subscribe for one or more communication utilities therefrom." This establishes that the act of subscription is a foundational and required step in the system for enabling communications between registered nodes and subscribers. The paragraph further discloses that: "Each of registered channel node and subscribers downloading role active HOS application for management of information and communication with the other channel nodes and subscribers." Thus, the description supports a subscriber's interaction with other participants in the network based on communication utilities they have subscribed to, as facilitated by the downloaded role-active HOS application. Paragraph [000305], in turn, elaborates on how users may configure auto content alerts using permissions and source selection. Specifically, it states: " asks for permissions as per settings via (52F) an auto content alerts setting by the users thereof wherein selecting taxonomy, sources, source name and services for receiving auto alerts." It further clarifies that: "The HSNE provides for all Human Services via Email and communicate with known as well as unknown users and subscribe for auto contents from selected multi sources." This demonstrates that uscrs (including subscribers) may configure their settings to select sources (including "HSN Human Agents" and "HSN Subscribers") for receiving auto content alerts. The configuration interface described in Figure 52 (as referenced in paragraph [000305]) supports the user's ability to choose from multiple known or unknown sources and to subscribe to auto-generated content based on those selections. This interaction implicitly involves selecting another source (e.g., another user or channel node) for receiving content aligning with the claim features relating to enabling subscription to another user profile.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s sixth argument.
Examiner notes that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board already found, with respect to parent US Application 15/053,889 in Interference Hearing 106,137), that paragraphs [000151] & [000305] and Fig 52 as not providing sufficient written description support for similar limitations associated with a user selecting to follow another user.
Further, Examiner disagrees that that saying "(e)ach of registered channel node and subscribers downloading role active HOS application for management of information and communication with the other channel nodes and subscribers" somehow “supports a subscriber's interaction with other participants in the network based on communication utilities they have subscribed to, as facilitated by the downloaded role-active HOS application”. Instead, it vaguely suggests that a role active HOS application can be downloaded by each node/subscriber “for management of information and communication” with the other channel nodes and subscribers. This says nothing of subscribing to communication utilities using an HOS application. This also does not describe that a user selects to follow another user. The claim limitations in question are “displaying…integrated subscriber control for enabling the users of the network to subscribe to the profile associated with of the plurality of users of the network in the event of selecting subscribe control from a user profile page” and “receiving, from the first user, subscriber information indicative of one or more other users to be followed by the first user” as well as the repeated recitation of “subscribers of a second user”.
Paragraph [000305], which relates specifically to a GUI for Email Service (HSNEM) is apparently somehow associated/connected with the suggestions of paragraph [000151]. This connection is unclear. This service deals only with inmail and outmail email alerts. The meaning of “asks for permission as per settings via (52F) a auto content setttings by the users thereof wherein selecting…sources, source name…for receiving auto alerts...provides for…subscribe for auto contents from selected multi-sources…” is generally vague, and does not demonstrate that subscribers “may configure their settings to select sources (including "HSN Human Agents" and "HSN Subscribers") for receiving auto content alerts. More significantly, Figure 52 and its corresponding description in paragraph [000305] fail to provide any details of or explain the “auto content alerts” for receiving “auto alerts” and, thus, do not explain that these alerts are the same as the user-to-user subscriber relationship recited in the claims. Fig 52 its corresponding description in paragraph [000305] does not provide written description support for “displaying…integrated subscriber control for enabling the users of the network to subscribe to the profile associated with of the plurality of users of the network in the event of selecting subscribe control from a user profile page” and “receiving, from the first user, subscriber information indicative of one or more other users to be followed by the first user” as well as the repeated recitation of “subscribers of a second user”. Broadcasting emails according to filtering option does describe that a user selects to follow another user. The discussion in paragraph [000305] referring to “Multi known as well as unknown matched sources via multi Search Sources & Contents options,” seems to relate to the search contents from different channel nodes that are identified by the system as matching aspects of the search criteria for a particular query. This provision for forwarding e-mails does not involve a message being sent to a user who “follows” the sending user, as properly interpreted in the claims. It is also not clear whether “subscribe” in paragraph [000305] refers to an HSN Subscriber (“first user”) or the “HSNE” or some other participant in the HSN. Figure 52 depicts a graphical interface for a participant of the HSN, but it is not clear that the participant is the HSN Subscriber or a different participant. The display of Figure 52 is entitled “HumanServiceNet Email (HSNEM), Messaging, Notification and Communication System and Method,” but it does not reference an HSN Subscriber. In contrast, other graphical interfaces depicted in the specification are entitled as being used by an “HSNS-Subscriber” (Figure 18) or “HSNHA17 Human Agent” (Figure 21). Furthermore, although Figure 52 allows for selection of several sources, including “HSN Human Agents” and “HSN Subscribers 20 (Personal Network)”, it is not clear why the interface of Figure 52 is an interface used by a HSN Subscriber/“first user,” much less why the HSN Subscriber him or herself would also be considered a source.
Applicant specifically argues on page 19 of the remarks that that
“paragraphs [000305]-[000325] and Figure 62F…
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s seventh argument.
Tag 62F in Fig 62 is a results window that appears in response to “keyword, natural language of HSN-SQL statements” input in query window 62E (per paragraphs [000322]-[000326] of the as-filed specification. This does not appear to relate to any of the aforementioned “auto content alerts” or filtering options from paragraph [000305] or Fig 52. Furthermore, Examiner disagrees that the mere inclusion of “details” link “indicates the presence of a user profile view that enables subscriptions directly from the displayed interface”. This assertion is entirely unsupported. Suggesting in a different paragraph an option to “check details of services and products via details links” also does not “indicate() the presence of a user profile view that enables subscriptions directly from the displayed interface”, nor does if demonstrate “that users are presented with an integrated interface where they can subscribe to the displayed user or service directly.” Nothing in paragraph [000305] suggests “that one user can choose and follow other users for content updates” as asserted by Applicant. Paragraph [000305] relates specifically to a GUI for Email Service (HSNEM), and deals only with inmail and outmail email alerts. Reference to “downloadable taxonomy repositories and service/product details” in paragraph [000325] does not disclose or indicate “storing the subscriber information in the storage”. Applicants’ disparate quotations from a large number of disparate paragraphs and completely different user interfaces fail to provide support for the specific features in question, even when attempting to connect these dots via suggestions of what various sentences imply or suggest.
Applicant specifically argues on pages 22-23 of the remarks that that
“identifying a user…as a subscriber of a second user…paragraph [000271]…provides clear support…Figure 18 and 21…
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s eight argument.
Examiner notes that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board already found, with respect to parent US Application 15/053,889 in Interference Hearing 106,137), that neither Figure 18 nor Figure 21 describe a first user 18 who follows a second user.
Further, the cited sentence does not confirm that the system “supports functionality that enables then to interact with and select services from other users, including human agents or service providers”. This is conclusory and not supported. Nothing in Applicant’s characterization of paragraph [000271] appears to demonstrate that a user (e.g., Amitabh, or another HSNS) using these interfaces is a subscriber a second person/user. Furthermore, a general inclusion of 18H or 21H, which “provide for selection of various communication modality including text messaging, voice, & video, file sharing, chatting, IP phone, fax, emailing, meeting and collaboration” appear to generally enable the user to select a communication modality for a communication, not to enable them to select a plurality of communication options for receiving messages from people to whom they subscribe.
Applicant specifically argues on page 24 of the remarks that that
“paragraph [000352] read in conjunction with Figure 66, provides clear written description support…demonstrates that subscribers…receive content from people or entities to whom they are matched or subscribed…shows that the HSNS has to ability to selectively enable or disable different sources or options…66B…shows…has the ability to selectively enable or disable different sources…
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s ninth argument.
Applicant’s assertions of what certain statements mean are simply not accurate. “preselectively enabling or disabling BBS and LKID source thereof” does not reasonably relate to, or support the system receiving or storing a selection of a plurality of communication options for receiving messages from people to whom they subscribe” (where messages are sent to selected communication options). LKID is a local knowledge information database structure. BBS stands for “black box search”.
Claim Interpretation
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the terms of the claim are presumed to have their plain meaning consistent with the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.
In regard to the phrase “subscribers of a second user”, the Examiner has determined that the claims are properly interpreted to mean users who are members of a group who have registered, or in another way affirmatively acted/choose, to receive messages specifically from the particular second user. The “first user” recited in the claims is therefore a user who affirmatively registered or otherwise chose to receive messages specifically from the particular second user (i.e., a user who has indicated an explicit preference/desire to receive messages authored by a particular second user is a subscriber of that user). A selection to subscribe to a user profile is similarly a selection to register, or in another way affirmatively acted/choose, to receive messages specifically from the user corresponding to the user profile.
In regard to the phrase “sending the message to each of the plurality of communication options selected by the first user”, the meaning of this phrase is clear from the plain language of the claims and expressly requires that the same message be sent to a plurality of communication options (e.g., e-mail, SMS, web) selected by the first user, not to just one communication option of the plurality of communication options.
Claim Objections
v Claims 1, 9, and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities: --a-- should be deleted preceding “multiple communication channels” to ensure the claim language conforms with standard grammatical construction. Appropriate correction is required.
v Claims 1 and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities: --and-- should be deleted preceding “identify, in the data repository” and should be added preceding “enabling the dynamically selected…” to ensure the claim language conforms with standard grammatical construction. Appropriate correction is required.
v Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: --and-- should be deleted preceding “enabling the dynamically selected multiple communication channels” and should be added preceding “sending the message…” to ensure the claim language conforms with standard grammatical construction. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
v Claim(s) 1-14 is/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:
Claim(s) 1-8 is/are drawn to methods (i.e., a process), claim(s) 9-13 is/are drawn to systems (i.e., a machine/manufacture), and claim(s) 14 is/are drawn to a non0transitory computer readable medium (i.e., a machine/manufacture). As such, claims 1-14 is/are drawn to one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A - Prong One:
In prong one of step 2A, the claim(s) is/are analyzed to evaluate whether it/they recite(s) a judicial exception.
Claim 1 (representative of independent claim(s) 9 and 14) recites/describes the following steps;
receiving, from…a first user, a selection of a plurality of communication options for receiving messages, wherein the first user is one of a plurality of users who are subscribers of a second user;
storing the selection of the plurality of communication options in a storage;
storing a user profile associated with an account detail of each of the plurality of users of the network in a data repository;
displaying the user profile and the user profile integrated subscribe control for enabling the users of the network to subscribe to the profile associated with each of the plurality of users of the network in the event of selecting subscribe control
receiving, from the first user, subscriber information indicative of one or more other users to be followed by the first user;
storing the subscriber information in the storage;
receiving, from a…second user, a message for distribution;
identifying…the subscribers of the second user as recipients of the message;
identifying, in the storage, a multiple communication channels dynamically selected from the plurality of communication options selected by the first user;
enabling the dynamically selected multiple communication channels function,including in-mail and out-mail alerts, based on the first user permissions
sending the message to the subscribers of the second user, including the first user, wherein the sending includes sending the message to each of the plurality of communication options selected by the first user
These steps, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, describe or set-forth a process for managing the dissemination of communications between users according to defined relationships between users (e.g., subscriptions to certain users) and user defined communication preferences for receiving messages from subscribed-to users. More specifically, the process comprises receiving, from a first user, a selection of a plurality of communication options for receiving messages, wherein the first user is one of a plurality of users who are subscribers of a second user; storing the selection of the plurality of communication options in a storage; storing a user profile associated with an account detail of each of the plurality of users of the network in a data repository; displaying the user profile and the user profile integrated subscribe control for enabling the users of the network to subscribe to the profile associated with each of the plurality of users of the network in the event of selecting subscribe control; receiving, from the first user, subscriber information indicative of one or more other users to be followed by the first user; storing the subscriber information in the storage; receiving, from a…second user, a message for distribution; identifying…the subscribers of the second user as recipients of the message; identifying, in the storage, a multiple communication channels dynamically selected from the plurality of communication options selected by the first user; enabling the dynamically selected multiple communication channels function,including in-mail and out-mail alerts, based on the first user permissions; and sending the message to the subscribers of the second user, including the first user, wherein the sending includes sending the message to each of the plurality of communication options selected by the first user. This process amounts to managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). These limitations therefore fall within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” subject matter grouping of abstract ideas.
These steps, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, additionally and/or alternatively encompass a human manually (e.g., in their mind, or using paper and pen) managing the dissemination of communications between users according to defined relationships between users (e.g., subscriptions to certain users) and user defined communication preferences for receiving messages from subscribed-to users (i.e., one or more concepts performed in the human mind, such as one or more observations, evaluations, judgments, opinions), but for the recitation of generic computer components. If one or more claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “mental processes” subject matter grouping of abstract ideas.
As such, the Examiner concludes that claim 1 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A – Prong One: YES).
Independent claim(s) 9 and 14 recite/describe nearly identical steps (and therefore also recite limitations that fall within this subject matter grouping of abstract ideas), and this/these claim(s) is/are therefore determined to recite an abstract idea under the same analysis.
Each of the depending claims likewise recite/describe these steps (by incorporation - and therefore also recite limitations that fall within this subject matter grouping of abstract ideas), and this/these claim(s) is/are therefore determined to recite an abstract idea under the same analysis. Any element(s) 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. The same reasoning is similarly applicable to the limitations in the remaining dependent claims, and their respective limitations are not reproduced here for the sake of brevity.
Step 2A - Prong Two:
In prong two of step 2A, an evaluation is made whether a claim recites any additional element, or combination of additional elements, that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception. An “addition element” is an element that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception (i.e., an element/limitation that sets forth an abstract idea is not an additional element). The phrase “integration into a practical application” is defined as requiring an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
The claim(s) recite the additional elements/limitations of
“by a computer processor” (claim 1)
“a message distribution system, comprising: a computer processor; a routing engine executing on the computer processor and configured to…and a transmission engine configured to…wherein the transmission engine…” (claim 9)
“a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising a plurality of instructions for message distribution the plurality of instructions comprising functionality to” (claim 14)
“in a network environment…from a first computing device of a first user… from a user profile page…from a second computing device of the second user” (claims 1, 9, and 14)
“wherein the plurality of communication options comprises e-mail, short messaging service (SMS), and web” (claim 2)
“from the first computing device…to the first computing device” (claims 3 and 11)
“from the first computing device” (claims 4, 5, and 12)
“identifying a hyperlink within the message; and displaying the hyperlink to the first user as an active link, wherein the active link comprises a shortened representation of the hyperlink” (claim 7)
The requirement to execute the claimed steps/functions “by a computer processor” (claim 1) and/or “a message distribution system, comprising: a computer processor; a routing engine executing on the computer processor and configured to…and a transmission engine configured to…wherein the transmission engine…” (claim 9) and/or “a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising a plurality of instructions for message distribution the plurality of instructions comprising functionality to” (claim 14) 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. Applicant’s own disclosure explains that these elements may be embodied as a general-purpose computer (e.g., Figs 3 and 5 and paragraphs [0097] & [0305]-[0308] of the published specification which shows generic computing workstations and/or PDS, laptop, mobile phone, server, etc., operating in a networked environment). This/these limitation(s) do/does 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)).
The recited additional element(s) of “in a network environment…from a first computing device of a first user… from a user profile page…from a second computing device of the second user” (claims 1, 9, and 14) and/or “wherein the plurality of communication options comprises e-mail, short messaging service (SMS), and web” (claim 2) and/or “from the first computing device…to the first computing device” (claims 3 and 11) and/or “from the first computing device” (claims 4, 5, and 12) and/or “identifying a hyperlink within the message; and displaying the hyperlink to the first user as an active link, wherein the active link comprises a shortened representation of the hyperlink” (claim 7) serves merely to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Specifically, it/they serve(s) to limit the application of the abstract idea to computing environments, such as distributed computing environments and/or the internet, where information is represented digitally, exchanged between computers over a network, and presented using graphical user interfaces. Furthermore, the requirement of “wherein the plurality of communication options comprises e-mail, short messaging service (SMS), and web” (claim 2) serves merely to limit the message communications to a particular technological field of use (e.g., certain digital forms of message communication). This reasoning was demonstrated in Bilski, where it was determined that certain claim elements limiting the basic concept of hedging to commodities and energy markets (merely limiting an abstract idea to one field of use) did not make the concept patentable. This reasoning was also demonstrated in Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (Fed. Cir. 2015), where the court determined "an abstract idea does not become nonabstract by limiting the invention to a particular field of use or technological environment, such as the Internet [or] a computer"). This/these limitation(s) do/does 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(g)).
Furthermore, although the claims recite a specific sequence of computer-implemented functions, and although the specification suggests certain functions may be advantageous for various reasons (e.g., subjective reasons, like the ability for people to control/share knowledge), the Examiner has determined that the ordered combination of claim elements (i.e., the claims as a whole) are not directed to an improvement to computer functionality/capabilities, an improvement to a computer-related technology or technological environment, and do not amount to a technology-based solution to a technology-based problem. The Examiner cannot find sufficient details in the specification such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the specifically-claimed invention as providing a particular/specific technical improvement. As explained below, the claimed invention/embodiment lacks sufficient written description support in the disclosure. It therefor follows that the specification fails to provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. Furthermore, the specification is sprawling and wandering, and a particular improvement would not be readily apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art, in general. Furthermore, even if the specification did set forth an improvement in technology (a fact the Examiner does not concede), the claims themselves would not reflect such an improvement. Per MPEP 2106.05(a) “(i)t is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements. See the discussion of Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 187 and 191-92, 209 USPQ 1, 10 (1981)) in subsection II, below. In addition, the improvement can be provided by the additional element(s) in combination with the recited judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.04(d) (discussing Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys., Inc., 879 F.3d 1299, 1303-04, 125 USPQ2d 1282, 1285-87 (Fed. Cir. 2018)).” The additional elements in the instant claims amount merely to requirements to implement the abstract idea using a general purpose computer (e.g., “by a computer processor” (claim 1), by “a message distribution system, comprising: a computer processor; a routing engine executing on the computer processor and configured to…and a transmission engine configured to…wherein the transmission engine…” (claim 9), using “a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising a plurality of instructions for message distribution the plurality of instructions comprising functionality to” (claim 14)), and a requirement for communication options and a message to be received from computing devices (which at most serves merely to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use). As such, any alleged improvement associated with the claimed process/functions would have to be found in the abstract idea itself (e.g., the suggestion that the first user is a subscriber of the second user, the selection of a plurality of communication options by the first user, the identifying of the subscribers of the second user as recipients of the message, the identification of the communication options, the sending of the message to the subscribers/recipients via the communication options).
Dependent claims 6, 8, 10, and 13 fail to include any additional elements. In other words, each of the limitations/elements recited in respective dependent claims 6, 8, 10, and 13 is/are further part of the abstract idea as identified by the Examiner for each respective dependent claim (i.e. they are part of the abstract idea recited in each respective claim). For example, claim 6 recites “wherein the plurality of message receipt preferences comprises a time window for receiving messages, and wherein the method further comprises: making a determination that a current time is within the time window for receiving messages, wherein the sending of the message to the first user is based on the determination”. This is an abstract limitation which further sets forth the abstract idea encompassed by claim 6 (e.g., it further defines how the interactions between people are managed and/or sets forth a further mental activity). This limitation is not an “additional element”, and therefore it is not subject to further analysis under Step 2A- Prong Two or Step 2B. The same logic applies to each of the other dependent claims, whose limitations are not being repeated here for the sake of brevity and clarity.
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 claim(s) is/are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A – Prong two: NO).
Step 2B:
In step 2B, the claims are analyzed to determine whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, is/are sufficient to ensure that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. This analysis is also termed a search for an "inventive concept." An "inventive concept" is furnished by an element or combination of elements that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception, and is sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2355, 110 USPQ2d at 1981 (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72-73, 101 USPQ2d at 1966)
As discussed above in “Step 2A – Prong 2”, the requirement to execute the claimed steps/functions “by a computer processor” (claim 1) and/or “a message distribution system, comprising: a computer processor; a routing engine executing on the computer processor and configured to…and a transmission engine configured to…wherein the transmission engine…” (claim 9) and/or “a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising a plurality of instructions for message distribution the plurality of instructions comprising functionality to” (claim 14) 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)).
As discussed above in “Step 2A – Prong 2”, the recited additional element(s) of “in a network environment…from a first computing device of a first user… from a user profile page…from a second computing device of the second user” (claims 1, 9, and 14) and/or “wherein the plurality of communication options comprises e-mail, short messaging service (SMS), and web” (claim 2) and/or “from the first computing device…to the first computing device” (claims 3 and 11) and/or “from the first computing device” (claims 4, 5, and 12) and/or “identifying a hyperlink within the message; and displaying the hyperlink to the first user as an active link, wherein the active link comprises a shortened representation of the hyperlink” (claim 7) serves merely to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. These limitations therefore do not qualify as “significantly more” (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
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, and generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Dependent claims 6, 8, 10, and 13 fail to include any additional elements. In other words, each of the limitations/elements recited in respective dependent claims 6, 8, 10, and 13 is/are further part of the abstract idea as identified by the Examiner for each respective dependent claim (i.e. they are part of the abstract idea identified by the Examiner to which each respective claim is directed).
The Examiner has therefore determined that no additional element, or combination of additional claims elements is/are sufficient to ensure the claim(s) amount to significantly more than the abstract idea identified above (Step 2B: NO).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
v Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The requirement for an adequate disclosure ensures that the public receives something in return for the exclusionary rights that are granted to the inventor by a patent, and sets forth the minimum requirements for the quality and quantity of information that must be contained in the patent to justify the grant.
In accordance with section 2161.01 I. of the MPEP, “original claims may fail to satisfy the written description requirement when the invention is claimed and described in functional language but the specification does not sufficiently identify how the invention achieves the claimed function. Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1349, 94 USPQ2d at 1171 (“[A]n adequate written description of a claimed genus requires more than a generic statement of an invention’s boundaries.”) (citing Eli Lilly, 119 F.3d at 1568, 43 USPQ2d at 1405-06). In Ariad, the court recognized the problem of using functional claim language without providing in the specification examples of species that achieve the claimed function. The problem is especially acute with genus claims that use functional language to define the boundaries of a claimed genus. In such a case, the functional claim may simply claim a desired result, and may do so without describing species that achieve that result. But the specification must demonstrate that the applicant has made a generic invention that achieves the claimed result and do so by showing that the applicant has invented species sufficient to support a claim to the functionally-defined genus. Id.” This may include disclosure of the hardware and software required to perform a claimed function including the "necessary steps for implementing the claimed function" (e.g. an algorithm, description of steps, flowcharts, etc.) (MPEP; 2161.01 I.). “If the specification does not provide a disclosure of the computer and algorithm in sufficient detail to demonstrate to one of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor possessed the invention including how to program the disclosed computer to perform the claimed function, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, for lack of written description must be made.” (MPEP; 2161.01 I.).
v Independent claims 1, 9, and 14 recite “receiving, from…a first user, a selection of a plurality of communication options for receiving messages, wherein the first user is one of a plurality of users who are subscribers of a second user…displaying the user profile and the user profile integrated subscribe control for enabling the users of the network to subscribe to the profile associated with each of the plurality of users of the network in the event of selecting subscribe control from a user profile page; receiving, from the first user, subscriber information indicative of one or more other users to be followed by the first user; storing the subscriber information in the storage… identifying…the subscribers of the second user as recipients of the message; identifying, in the storage, a multiple communication channels dynamically selected from the plurality of communication options selected by the first user; enabling the dynamically selected multiple communication channels functions including in-mail and out-mail alerts, based on the first user permissions; and sending the message to the subscribers of the second user, including the first user, wherein the sending includes sending the message to each of the plurality of communication options selected by the first user”. However, the Examiner cannot find support in the priority documents for i) sending a message received from a second user to a first user (a subscriber of the second user) including sending the message to each of a plurality of communication options selected by the first user, ii) the first user being one of a plurality of users who are subscribers of the second user, which is utilized in the “identifying…the subscribers of the second user as recipients” and “sending the message to the subscribers of the second user” steps/function, or iii) receiving, from the first user, subscriber information indicative of one or more other users to be followed by the first user; storing the subscriber information in the storage and similarly “displaying the user profile and the user profile integrated subscribe control for enabling the users of the network to subscribe to the profile associated with each of the plurality of users of the network in the event of selecting subscribe control”, or “identifying, in the storage, a multiple communication channels dynamically selected from the plurality of communication options selected by the first user; enabling the dynamically selected multiple communication channels functions including in-mail and out-mail alerts, based on the first user permissions. The same is true for “enabling the dynamically selected multiple communication channels function, including in-mail and out-mail alerts based on user permissions”, which is recited in claim 9.
As best as understood by the Examiner, the claimed “first user” corresponds to the “HSN Subscriber” described in the specification, and the “second user” corresponds to the “HSN Human Agent” described in the specification. These components are part of the “HSN” or “Human Service Network” disclosed in the application, which is part of a Universal Human Service Framework (“UHSF”), which is the focus of the invention disclosed in the specification. The “HSN Subscriber” (i.e., “first user”) is described to be a “user component of the UHSF system information and knowledge resources, [who] exploits the services and products offered by other channel nodes” ([000100]). The “HSN Human Agent,” (i.e., “second user”) is “a person expert in the filed [sic] offering his/her information or knowledge services maintaining the dual mode presence within the said HSN framework . . . .” ([000153]) Thus, the “first user” is one who exploits the system to get information and the “second user” is one who provides the information to the system. A “channel node” appears to be the sum of the sources used to produce the product that subscribers to the HSN receive. As best as understood by the Examiner, the specification appears to describe a communications network for users of a system to get information and knowledge from other users through a channel node.
With respect to the first user being a subscriber of a second user (i.e.. “wherein the first user is one of a plurality of users who are subscribers of a second user”) and/or “displaying the user profile and the user profile integrated subscribe control for enabling the users of the network to subscribe to the profile associated with each of the plurality of users of the network in the event of selecting subscribe control” and/or “receiving, from the first user, subscriber information indicative of one or more other users to be followed by the first user; storing the subscriber information in the storage” and “identifying…the subscribers of the second user as recipients of the message” and “sending the message to the subscribers of the second user, including the first user”, the most pertinent portions of the specification appear to be Figures 18, 21, & 52 and paragraphs [000151] and [000305].
Paragraph [000151] of the as-filed specification refers to registration and subscription, but does not describe “subscribing” a user or sending messages to subscribers because nothing in the passage indicates that a user selects to follow another user. This the passage does not indicate that a user chooses/selects to receive communications sent by a particular other user.
Figure 52 and its corresponding description in paragraph [000305] appear to generally show buttons for allowing various sources, such as “HSN Human Agents’ and “HSN Subscribers”, to download content or subscribe to receive “auto content”. However, Figure 52 and its corresponding description in paragraph [000305] fail to provide any details of or explain the “auto content alerts” for receiving “auto alerts” and, thus, do not explain that these alerts are the same as the user-to-user subscriber relationship recited in the claims. Paragraph [000305] refers to topical subscriptions based on content interest, not a user subscribing to users or becoming “subscribers of a…user”, as is claimed. The discussion in paragraph [000305] referring to “Multi known as well as unknown matched sources via multi Search Sources & Contents options,” seems to relate to the search contents from different channel nodes that are identified by the system as matching aspects of the search criteria for a particular query. This provision for forwarding e-mails does not involve a message being sent to a user who “follows” the sending user, as properly interpreted in the claims. It is also not clear whether “subscribe” in paragraph [000305] refers to an HSN Subscriber (“first user”) or the “HSNE” or some other participant in the HSN. Figure 52 depicts a graphical interface for a participant of the HSN, but it is not clear that the participant is the HSN Subscriber or a different participant. The display of Figure 52 is entitled “HumanServiceNet Email (HSNEM), Messaging, Notification and Communication System and Method,” but it does not reference an HSN Subscriber. In contrast, other graphical interfaces depicted in the specification are entitled as being used by an “HSNS-Subscriber” (Figure 18) or “HSNHA17 Human Agent” (Figure 21). Furthermore, although Figure 52 allows for selection of several sources, including “HSN Human Agents” and “HSN Subscribers 20 (Personal Network)”, it is not clear why the interface of Figure 52 is an interface used by a HSN Subscriber/“first user,” much less why the HSN Subscriber him or herself would also be considered a source.
Figs 18 and 21 appear to show a first user (Amitabh) is a subscriber of a group, not of a person/user. In other words, what could be construed as a “first user” in Fig 18 and 21 does not appear to be a user who subscribes to a second user so that they receive the second user’s messages. There does not appear to be any choice/element in Fig 18 the includes a choice of a second user to follow, or how such a process would occur using the interface of Fig 18.
Figure 46 (providing the option of “Subscribe for selected resources from selected sources (auto)”), Figure 62 (element 62F), Figure 18 (element 18F), Figure 27 (elements 27A and 27B) use of the word “subscribe”. However, these portions of the disclosure at most convey subscribing to a particular service, not subscribing to a user, as is required by the claim language.
As such, the specification does not appear to provide adequate written description for the first user being a subscriber of a second user (i.e.. “wherein the first user is one of a plurality of users who are subscribers of a second user”) and/or “displaying the user profile and the user profile integrated subscribe control for enabling the users of the network to subscribe to the profile associated with each of the plurality of users of the network in the event of selecting subscribe control” and/or “receiving, from the first user, subscriber information indicative of one or more other users to be followed by the first user; storing the subscriber information in the storage” and “identifying…the subscribers of the second user as recipients of the message” and “sending the message to the subscribers of the second user, including the first user”)
With respect to the requirement of “receiving, from…a first user, a selection of a plurality of communication options for receiving messages, wherein the first user is one of a plurality of users who are subscribers of a second user” and “sending the message to the subscribers of the second user, including the first user, wherein the sending includes sending the message to each of the plurality of communication options selected by the first user”, the specification fails to describe that the claimed first user selects a plurality of communication options where messages are to be received, or that a message received from the second user is send to each of the plurality of communication options selected by the first user.
Figures 19 and 21 fail to describe selection of a plurality of communication options by the subscriber (first user). Figure 21 is not relevant to the claim limitation because it depicts the interface used by the “Human Agent,” who corresponds to the second user, not the first user. Figure 18 also describes selecting only one mode of communication, not a plurality of endpoints as required in the claims.
Neither Figures 18 and 21 nor Figure 19 describe the claim element “sending the message to each of the plurality of communication options selected by the first user,” as required in the claims. The headings on the interfaces of Figures 18 and 19 indicate that they are interfaces for an HSNS-Subscriber – a “first user.” The headings on the interfaces of Figure 21, as well as Figure 22, indicate that they are interfaces for an HSNHA-Human Agent – a “second user.” Yet, each of these interfaces include an option for selecting utilities, including IM, Mail, Collaboration, Meeting, Voice & Video, File Sharing, and E-mail. The specification appears to provide for a system that allows first users and second users to select a communication options for communication, but it does not describe a subscriber relationship between the two users, wherein messages are sent to the first user at a plurality of the first user’s choice of communication options. Figure 22 appears to suggest that the second user (HSN Human Agent) selects the communication option, not the first user. There is no equivalent selection facility in Figure 18, which describes the interface for the first user.
Figure 6, Figure 66, nor their corresponding descriptions in the specification describe the selection of a plurality of communication options as required in the claims. Selecting multiple sources and synchronizing data is not the same as selecting a plurality of communication options to which a message should be sent. Although the ability to send messages to different types of devices is part of the function of allowing a user to select multiple communication options, it does not describe the ability of a user to select these multiple communication options. Furthermore, a means of storing the preferences of users is not a sufficient description of the selection of a plurality of communication options by a user.
As such, the specification does not appear to provide adequate written description for “receiving, from…a first user, a selection of a plurality of communication options for receiving messages, wherein the first user is one of a plurality of users who are subscribers of a second user” and “sending the message to the subscribers of the second user, including the first user, wherein the sending includes sending the message to each of the plurality of communication options selected by the first user”.
With respect to “identifying, in the storage, a multiple communication channels dynamically selected from the plurality of communication options selected by the first user; enabling the dynamically selected multiple communication channels functions including in-mail and out-mail alerts, based on the first user permissions” (claims 1 and 14), the Examiner simply cannot find any support for identifying multiple communication channels dynamically selected from the plurality of communication options selected by the first user, or enabling the dynamically selected multiple communication channels functions including in-mail and out-mail alerts, based on the first user permissions. The same is true for “enabling the dynamically selected multiple communication channels function, including in-mail and out-mail alerts based on user permissions”, which is recited in claim 9.
Each of the dependent claims ultimately depend from one of these claims, inherit these limitations, and therefore similarly contain subject matter that lacks adequate written description support.
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 1-14 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.
v Claims 1 and 14 recite "enabling the dynamically selected multiple communication channels function including in-mail and out-mail alerts, based on the first user permissions." There is insufficient antecedent basis for either of the underlined limitations in the claims. Although the claims make previous reference to “multiple communication channels dynamically selected from the plurality of communication options selected by the first user”, there is no mention of a “dynamically selected multiple communication channels function”. Furthermore, there is simply no previous mention of first user permissions. For the purpose of examination, the phrase “enabling the dynamically selected multiple communication channels function including in-mail and out-mail alerts, based on the first user permissions” will be interpreted as being “enabling a dynamically selected multiple communication channels function including in-mail and out-mail alerts, based on .”
Claim 9 similarly recites “enabling the dynamically selected multiple communication channels function”, and therefore similarly recites subject matter that lacks sufficient antecedent basis. For the purpose of examination, the phrase “enabling the dynamically selected multiple communication channels function, including in-mail and out-mail alerts based on user permissions” will be interpreted as being “enabling a dynamically selected multiple communication channels function, including in-mail and out-mail alerts based on user permissions.”
Each of the dependent claims are similarly rejected by virtue of their dependency on one of these claims.
Prior Art of Record
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure.
“Miski: A White Paper” (Dorrell, Philip, Published June 3, 2000 at http://miski.sourceforge.net/miski-white-paper.html; Screenshot from February 23, 2001 captured by Internet Archive Wayback Machine and retrievable at http://web.archive.org/web/20010223204516/miski.sourceforge.net/miski-white-paper.html) discloses a system where user’s subscribe to other user’s to receive messages authored by those users and wherein user’s specify delivery preferences for how messages/alerts are sent to them.
Hull et al. (U.S. PG Pub No. 2011/0289574 November 24, 2011 - hereinafter "Hull”) discloses a system where user’s subscribe to other user’s to receive messages authored by those users and wherein user’s specify delivery preferences for how messages/alerts are sent to them.
Wendkos et al. (U.S. PG Pub No. 2005/0228899 October 13, 2005 - hereinafter "Wendkos”) discloses a system where user’s subscribe to other user’s to receive messages authored by those users and wherein user’s specify delivery preferences for how messages/alerts are sent to them.
Johnson et al. (U.S Patent No. 5,555,426 September 10 1996 - hereinafter "Johnson”) discloses a system where user’s subscribe to other user’s to receive messages authored by those users and wherein users author messages that are not addressed to specific recipients and wherein the system matches these messages with recipients that have requested messages from the particular sender.
Tingo, JR. (U.S. PG Pub No. 2007/0105536, May 10, 2007) (hereinafter "Tingo”) discloses user-controlled message delivery preferences.
Heikes al. (US 7,386,798 B1; hereinafter “Heikes’) discloses a system where user’s subscribe to other user’s to receive messages authored by those users.
Melby et al. (US 2006/0294493 A1; hereinafter “Melby”) discloses user-controlled message delivery preferences.
Dietz et al. (US 2004/0267961 A1; hereinafter “Dietz”) discloses a system where user’s subscribe to other
Aloni et al. (US Patent No 6,965,917 November 15, 2005; hereinafter “Aloni”) discloses a system where user’s can select a plurality of communication options with which to receive messages including email and SMS and web
Conclusion
No claim is allowed
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES M DETWEILER whose telephone number is (571)272-4704. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8 AM to 5 PM ET.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Waseem Ashraf can be reached at telephone number (571)-270-3948. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/JAMES M DETWEILER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3621