Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notw0ithstanding 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, 6, 11, 16 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Appelman (US 8,429,083) in view of Levy (US 2006/0168019)
As per claim 1, Appelman discloses a system comprising: a memory storing computer-readable instructions; and at least one processor to execute the instructions to:
receive a piece of electronic correspondence from a sender computing device; determine that the piece of electronic correspondence is sent to a recipient that requests that the piece of electronic correspondence has an electronic stamp; (Col 2 line 58- Col 3 line 3; The transmitting client 110 includes a device configured to allow a user to generate an electronic mail message. The transmitting client 110 may include one or more messaging applications that allow a user to operate an electronic mailbox used to administer a system for sending and receiving electronic mail messages.; Col 5 lines 19-27; 4) The receiving host 150 may be configured to interface with a stamp authority 140 in deciding whether to receive an electronic mail message. The receiving host 150 may be configured to identify a stamp associated with an electronic mail message and poll the stamp authority 140 to determine if the stamp is valid. The receiving host 150 then may be configured to process electronic mail messages determined to be valid, while rejecting electronic mail messages determined to be invalid.)
send a request to attach the electronic stamp to the piece of electronic correspondence to the sender computing device; receive the piece of electronic correspondence with the electronic stamp and forward the piece of electronic correspondence to the recipient; (Col 6 line 58- Col 7 line 8; The response messages may include a code segment (e.g., an HTML link) allowing a stamp to be associated in a retransmission, or allowing the transmitting user to purchase a stamp.)
receive one of an acknowledgement and a rejection of the piece of electronic correspondence from the recipient; and (Col 6 line 53 – Col 7 line 8; Generally, an electronic mail message is unsolicited if there is no prior relationship between the transmitting user and the receiving user. Rejecting the electronic mail message may include transmitting an electronic mail message in reply indicating that the receiving host 204, a receiving client 205, or the receiving user does not accept unstamped electronic mail messages. )
Appelman fails to disclose return the electronic stamp to the recipient after the acknowledgement to allow the electronic stamp to be reused in a future piece of electronic correspondence.
Levy discloses to returns the electronic stamp to the recipient after the acknowledgement to allow the electronic stamp to be reused in a future piece of electronic correspondence. ([0066]; The enforcement unit is for location at intermediate servers over a network, and ensures that all passing email conforms to the model.; [0127]; an enforcement unit which ensures that all passing email conform to the model. The email model defines an email to have a reusable electronic stamp and an acknowledgement portion. The acknowledgement portion serves to return the stamp to the sender if the email is accepted, and deactivates the stamp if the email is rejected, thereby preventing the stamp from being returned to the sender. Stamp deactivation may be performed, for example, by having the recipient retain the electronic stamp; Note: Enforcement server is at the intermediary between the sender and recipient)
At the time of invention, it would have been obvious before the earliest effective filing date for the teachings of Appelman to be modified so that an acknowledgement or rejection is sent to the stamp authority and for to the recipient to use the stamp for future use. This would have been advantageous to develop an anti-spam method of email transmission. (Levy, [0018])
As per claim 6, Appelman/ Levy disclose the system of claim 1. Appelman discloses the at least one processor further to receive the rejection of the piece of correspondence and send a notification of the rejection to the sender computing device. (Col 6 line 53 – Col 7 line 8; Generally, an electronic mail message is unsolicited if there is no prior relationship between the transmitting user and the receiving user. Rejecting the electronic mail message may include transmitting an electronic mail message in reply indicating that the receiving host 204, a receiving client 205, or the receiving user does not accept unstamped electronic mail messages.)
As per claims 11 and 21, please see the discussion under claim 1 a similar logic applies.
As per claim 16, please see the discussion under claim 6 a similar logic applies.
Claims 2-3, 5, 7, 10, 12-13, 15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Appelman (US 8,429,083) / Levy (US 2006/0168019) further in view of Barber (US 2011/0218916)
As per claim 2, Appelman / Levy discloses the system of claim 1. Appelman fails to disclose the at least one processor further to receive a request for at least one electronic stamp, send a request for a monetary value for the at least one electronic stamp, issue the at least one electronic stamp, and send the at least one electronic stamp to the sender computing device.
Barber discloses the at least one processor further to receive a request for at least one electronic stamp, send a request for a monetary value for the at least one electronic stamp, issue the at least one electronic stamp, and send the at least one electronic stamp to the sender computing device. ([0018] Next the sender requests that the stamp issuer issue a stamp, for a specified amount and for a specified lifespan, to be used in sending an e-mail to a specified destination e-mail address (the address of the recipient, Y). In the preferred embodiment, lifespan is indicated as a number of days d, and the value of the stamp is indicated as a number of cents (hundredths of the U.S. dollar. Before issuing the requested stamp to the sender, the stamp issuer confirms that the sender's account has sufficient funds to cover the cost of issue of the requested stamp. In the preferred embodiment, the cost of issue of the stamp would exceed the cost of the stamp by some pre-agreed amount, an amount intended to cover fees charged by the issuer for providing the stamp issuing and redemption service.)
At the time of invention, it would have been obvious before the earliest effective filing date for the combined teachings of Appelman / Levy to be modified so that the stamp issuer receives request for the electronic stamp and to issue the electronic stamp to the sending computer. This would have been advantageous to advertise or convey any other kind of message in such a way that a receiver of the e-mail would believe that the e-mail is more likely than not worth opening and reading. (Barber, [0004])
As per claim 3, Appelman / Levy disclose the system of claim 1. Barber discloses wherein the electronic stamp has a monetary value. ([0018] Next the sender requests that the stamp issuer issue a stamp, for a specified amount and for a specified lifespan, to be used in sending an e-mail to a specified destination e-mail address (the address of the recipient, Y). In the preferred embodiment, lifespan is indicated as a number of days d, and the value of the stamp is indicated as a number of cents (hundredths of the U.S. dollar).)
As per claim 5, Appelman / Levy disclose the system of claim 1. Barber discloses wherein the electronic stamp comprises a token having a monetary value. ([0044]; In addition the stamp value and lifetime, which are indicated on the stamp, need not be in human readable form (but in a form readable by the special stamp valuing software), and, in the case of the stamp value, what is indicated can include along with the stamp numerical value a code to indicate the currency in which the value of the stamp is given.)
As per claim 7, Appelman / Levy The system of claim 6. Barber discloses the at least one processor further to receive the electronic stamp associated with the rejection, generate a monetary value that is less than an original monetary value for the electronic stamp, and send the monetary value that is less than original monetary value for the electronic stamp to the sender computing device. ([0018]; the preferred embodiment, the cost of issue of the stamp would exceed the cost of the stamp by some pre-agreed amount, an amount intended to cover fees charged by the issuer for providing the stamp issuing and redemption service. If the account balance is not sufficient to cover the cost of issue of the stamp, the stamp issuer notifies the sender, who would then have to make a further deposit. Once the sender account balance is adequate, the stamp issuer calculates the stamp, i.e., produces a stamp, here indicated as S. The stamp issuer then provides the stamp to the sender after recording the time when the stamp was issued.)
As per claim 10, Appelman / Levy discloses the system of claim 1. Barber discloses wherein the electronic correspondence comprises one of an email message, a text message, a social media message, a voice message, a data message, and a file. ([0016]; If the sender has an e-mail address of sen@hotmail.com, and the recipient has an e-mail address of rec@email.com, then such a stamp might be, for example: 37801e5d|30|150|sen@hotmail.comirec@email.com|67f0ca42|fa470eb2|14ae4569, the specific values of some of the fields (set off by the delimiter "|") depending on the details of the calculation of the stamp, as explained below. The recipient would then have thirty days to redeem the stamp and obtain the indicated stamp value of $1.50USD, as explained below.)
As per claim 12, please see the discussion under claim 2 a similar logic applies.
As per claim 13, please see the discussion under claim 3 a similar logic applies.
As per claim 15, please see the discussion under claim 5 a similar logic applies.
As per claim 17, please see the discussion under claim 7 a similar logic applies.
Claims 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Appelman (US 8,429,083) / Levy (US 2006/0168019) further in view of Sugiura et al. – hereinafter Sugiura (US 2023/0052572)
As per claim 4, Appelman / Levy disclose The system of claim 1. The combined teachings of Appelman / Levy fail to disclose wherein the electronic stamp comprises cryptocurrency having a monetary value.
Sugiura discloses wherein the electronic stamp comprises cryptocurrency having a monetary value. ( [0074]; To the drive, a removable medium constituted by, for example, a magnetic disk, an optical disk, a magnetooptical disk, or a semiconductor memory is mounted as appropriate. The removable medium stores a program for conducting a cryptocurrency transaction, [0134]; To allow the event participant to take a train and get off at predetermined stations to obtain bonuses such as electronic stamps of characters or points)
It would have been obvious before the earliest effective filing date of the invention for the combined teachings of Appelman / Levy to be modified so that electronic stamp uses cryptocurrency as the monetary value. This would have been advantageous to guaranteeing fairness of the blockchain by the center server being operated in reliable institutions such as governments or banks (Sugiara, [0013])
As per claim 14, please see the discussion under claim 4 as similar logic applies.
Claims 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Appelman (US 8,429,083) / Levy (US 2006/0168019) further in view of Yabe et al. -hereinafter Yabe (US 2003/ 0134621)
As per claim 8, Appelman / Levy disclose the system of claim 1. Appelman discloses wherein a server computing device associated with the recipient sends one of the acknowledgement and the rejection ( (Col 6 line 53 – Col 7 line 8; Generally, an electronic mail message is unsolicited if there is no prior relationship between the transmitting user and the receiving user. Rejecting the electronic mail message may include transmitting an electronic mail message in reply indicating that the receiving host 204, a receiving client 205, or the receiving user does not accept unstamped electronic mail messages. )
The combined teachings of Appelman / Levy fails to disclose sending a message after a period of time.
Yabe discloses sending a message after a period of time. ([0034] In the instance that no acknowledgement response is transmitted from mobile station 10 within a predetermined time period after an email arrival notice is transmitted to mobile station 10, mobile packet communication network 20 transmits a negative acknowledgement response (referred to as `NAck` hereinafter) to the node of the transmitting side, which indicates that mobile station 10 is not available now)
It would have been obvious before the earliest effective filing date of the invention for the combined teachings of Appelman / Levy to be modified to disclose sending the rejection or acknowledgement to show the status indicators or availability.
As per claim 18, please see the discussion under claim 8 as similar logic applies.
Claims 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Appelman (US 8,429,083) / Levy (US 2006/0168019) / Barber (US 2011/0218916) further in view of Van Roy et al. – hereinafter Van Roy (US 2011/0246932)
As per claim 9, Appelman / Levy disclose the system of claim 1. Barber disclose wherein the request to attach the electronic stamp indicates a requested monetary value of the electronic stamp. ([0018] Next the sender requests that the stamp issuer issue a stamp, for a specified amount and for a specified lifespan, to be used in sending an e-mail to a specified destination e-mail address (the address of the recipient, Y). In the preferred embodiment, lifespan is indicated as a number of days d, and the value of the stamp is indicated as a number of cents (hundredths of the U.S. dollar). Before issuing the requested stamp to the sender, the stamp issuer confirms that the sender's account has sufficient funds to cover the cost of issue of the requested stamp.)
The combined teachings of Appelman/ Levy / Barber fail to disclose an acceptable electronic stamp format.
Van Roy discloses an acceptable electronic stamp format. ([0032] With reference to FIG. 2 at block 32, the administrator may alternatively choose to edit an existing electronic stamp configuration. If the administrator chooses to edit an existing electronic stamp configuration, the previous selections for that particular stamp may be displayed in a format similar to the one shown in FIG. 4.)
It would have been obvious before the earliest effective filing date for the combined teachings of Appelman / Barber / Levy to be modified so that the an acceptable stamp format is specified. This would have accommodated offices that require unique stamp from day to day. ([0004])
As per claim 19, please see the discussion under claim 9 as similar logic applies.
Conclusion.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from theexaminer should be directed to Chirag R Patel whose telephone number is (571)272-7966. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday from 9:00AM to 6:00PM. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, theexaminer's supervisor, Glenton Burgess, can be reached on 571-272-3949. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceedingis assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status informationfor published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or PublicPAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available throughPrivate PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, seehttp://pairdirect.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the PrivatePAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197(toll free).
/Chirag R Patel/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2454