DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In claim 15, as it relates to independent claim 1 and 9, Examiner is not clear about what device is obtaining information associated with a text message, what device is storing and enabling a second device to audit. The applicant recites processors and memories; however these processors and memories are not attached to a device. Applicant should amend claims to better clarify the inventive concept.
Double Patenting
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 1-20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 4, 9, 12, 13, 15, 18 and 19 of U.S. Patent No. 11, 758, 390. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claimed limitations recited in the present application are found in U.S. Patent No. 11, 758, 390 with obvious wording variations. Take an example of comparing claim 1 of pending application and claim 9, 12 and 13 of the U.S. Patent No. 11, 758, 390:
Pending Application # 18/891,469
U.S. Patent No. 11, 758, 390
Claim 1, A method, comprising: obtaining information associated with a text message communication in which a first device participates using a telephone number assigned to the first device, wherein the first device is of a device group including one or more other devices restricted from using the telephone number while the telephone number is assigned to the first device; storing the information in a record associated with the telephone number; and enabling a second device to audit the record.
Claim 2, similar to claim 13 in U.S. Patent No. 11, 758, 390.
Claim 3, similar to claim 18 and 19 in U.S. Patent No. 11, 758, 390.
Claim 4, similar claim language as in independent claims 1, 9 and 15 in U.S. Patent No. 11, 758, 390.
Claim 5, similar to portion of claim 13 in U.S. Patent No. 11, 758, 390; as far as storing information associated with the text message communication in an auditable record associated with the telephone number; and in another patented case by the Applicant, similar claim language where “both the text message communication and a second text message communication participated in using the second telephone number”.
Claim 6, similar to portion of claim 13 in U.S. Patent No. 11, 758, 390; as far as “ record associated with the telephone number”, and in another patented case by the Applicant, similar claim language where “ audit of the information associated with the text message communication using an audit device, wherein the audit includes a review of the record associated with the telephone number”.
Claim 7, similar to claim 12 and 13 in U.S. Patent No. 11, 758, 390.
Claim 8, similar to claim 13 in U.S. Patent No. 11, 758, 390.
Claim 9, similar to claim 4 in U.S. Patent No. 11, 758, 390; “another contact center agent device of the other devices” similar to “second device in a group.”
Claim 10, similar to claim 9, 12 and 13 in U.S. Patent No. 11, 758, 390.
Claim 11, similar to claim 18 and 19 in U.S. Patent No. 11, 758, 390.
Claim 12, similar claim language as in independent claims 1, 9 and 15 in U.S. Patent No. 11, 758, 390.
Claim 13, similar to portion of claim 18 in U.S. Patent No. 11, 758, 390; as far as storing information associated with the text message communication in an auditable record associated with the telephone number; and in another patented case by the Applicant, similar claim language where “audit of the information associated with the text message communication using an audit device, wherein the audit includes a review of the record associated with the telephone number”.
Claim 14, similar to claim 12 and 13 in U.S. Patent No. 11, 758, 390.
Claim 15, similar to claim 9, 12 and 13 in U.S. Patent No. 11, 758, 390.
Claim 16, similar to claim 18 and 19 in U.S. Patent No. 11, 758, 390.
Claim 17, similar claim language as in independent claims 1, 9 and 15 in U.S. Patent No. 11, 758, 390.
Claim 18, similar to claim 12 and 13 in U.S. Patent No. 11, 758, 390.
Claim 19, in another patented case by the Applicant, similar claim language where “ audit of the information associated with the text message communication using an audit device, which examiner interprets as a second device other than the device group
Claim 20, similar to claim 2 in U.S. Patent No. 11, 758, 390; where “the telephone number is defined for use by a group of contact center devices including the contact center agent device and the other devices”.
Claim 9, A non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions operable to cause one or more processors to perform operations comprising: assigning a telephone number to a contact center agent device to enable the contact center agent device to use the telephone number to participate in a text message communication; restricting use of the telephone number by other devices while the telephone number is assigned to the contact center agent device; and releasing the telephone number at a conclusion of the text message communication.
Claim 12, The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 9, wherein the telephone number is defined for use by a group of contact center devices including the contact center agent device and the other devices.
Claim 13, The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 9, the operations comprising: storing information associated with the text message communication in an auditable record associated with the telephone number.
Further, the instant claims obviously encompass the claimed invention of U.S. Patent No. 11, 758, 390 and differ only in terminology. To the extent that the instant claims are broadened and therefore generic to the claimed invention of U.S. Patent No. 11, 758, 390, in re Goodman 29 USPQ 2d 2010 CAFC 1993, states that a generic claim cannot be issued without a terminal disclaimer, if a species claim has been previously been claimed in a co-pending application.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH E DEAN, JR whose telephone number is (571)270-7116. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30-3:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Alison Slater can be reached at 571-270-0375. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOSEPH E DEAN, JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2647
Prosecution Insights