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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is responsive to application filed on 9/23/2026. Claims 1-20 are pending examination.
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 7,14 and 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.
Claim 7 and 14 recite the limitation " … after transmission of the one or more messages to the plurality of users after execution of the message transmission plan. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Independent claims 1 and 8 do not provide an explicit antecedent basis for “the message transmission plan”. While the independent claims recite “causing the one or more message transition option”, they fail to introduce a specific “message transmission plan”. It is unclear whether “the message transmission plan” refers back to the selection of the transmission options, or if it introduces a separate, unrecited step or entity. Clarification is requested.
Claim 20 recites “… receiving delivery feedback after transmission of the one or more messages tot eh plurality of users after execution of “the message transmission plan”. Similar to claims 7 and 14, lacks a proper antecedent basis for “the message transmission plan”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 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 2A, Prong One.
Claim 1 is a method comprising a messaging request associated with message delivery attributes, selecting one or more message transmission options based on the message delivery attributes and causing transmission of the messages using the selected transmission options. The claim recites the concept of evaluating information and making decision based on the evaluated information. Specifically, the claim recites receiving information (message request and delivery attributes), analyzing the information (selecting transmission options based on the attributes) and acting on the result of the analysis (transmitting the messages using the selected options). These limitations describe a mental process because a person could evaluate desired delivery characteristics such as timing, reliability, quality, and cost, determine an appropriate messaging channel or route, and instruct transmission based on that determination. The claim therefore recites a mental process, which is an abstract idea. Accordingly, the claim recites managing the delivery of combinations based on business-related priorities and preferences. Selecting transmission option based on timing, reliability, quality or cost constitutes a form of commercial or operational decision making which is a method of organizing human activity.
Claims 2-7 further recite predicting attributes, detecting a messaging window, identifying interaction messages, applying machine learning model, training the machine learning model, and retraining the machine learning model using feedback. These limitations simply refine the analysis used to make the routing decision and therefore also recite abstract mental process and mathematical concepts.
Claims 8-14, and 15-20 recite substantially similar limitations in the form f a system and computer readable medium and therefore and therefore likewise recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A, prong Two
The additional elements such as an application programming interface, one or more processors, a memory, a non-transitory computer -readable medium, and transmission of messages through messaging channels or routes. These elements are recited at high level of generality and only perform generic computer functions such as receiving data, processing data, and storing data and remitting dat. The claims do not recite any improvement to computer functionality, network architecture, messaging protocols, routing protocols, processor operation, memory operation or any other technology. The claims simply use generic computer components as tools to implement the abstract idea of selecting a message transmission option based on desired delivery characteristics. The claims do not effect a transformation of an article to a different state. The claims do not apply the abstract idea in any meaningful way beyond generally linking the abstract idea to a technological environment.
Step 2B
The additional elements recited in the claims are generic computing components performing well-understood, routine and conventional activities including: receiving information through as API, processing information using one or more processors, storing information in memory, transmitting messages over communication networks, and applying a machine learning model to input data to generate an output. The machine learning limitations are recited functionally and at a high level of abstraction. The claims so not recite any specific model architecture, training technique, feature extraction technique, network structure, or technological improvement resulting from the use of the model. The machine learning model only performs the abstract analysis used to select a message transmission option. The ordered combination of elements amounts to no more than collecting information, analyzing information according to specific a criterion and performing an action based on the analysis using generic computer technology. Such activities do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, claims 1-20 do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception and are not directed to patent eligible subject matter.
Double Patenting
Claims 1-20 are rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of United States Patent 11,770,355, and claims 1-18 of United States Patent 12,101,287. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patent claims contain every element of the instant application and as such is encompassed by the claims of this instant application. Claims 1-18 of the instant application therefore is/are not patently distinct from the earlier patent claim(s) and as such is/are unpatentable over obvious-type double patenting. A later patent/application claim is not patentably distinct from an earlier claim if the later claim is anticipated by the earlier claim. “A later patent claim is not patentably distinct from an earlier patent claim if the later claim is obvious over, or anticipated by, the earlier claim. (In re Longi, 759 F.2d at 896,225 USPQ at 651 (affirming a holding of obviousness-type double patenting because the claims at issue were obvious over claims in four prior art patents); In re Berg, 140 F.3d at 1437, 46 USPQ2d at 1233 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (affirming a holding of obviousness type double patenting where a patent application claim to a genus is anticipated by a patent claim to a species within that genus); ELI LILLY AND COMPANY v BARR LABORATORIES, INC., United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, ON PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC (DECIDED: May 30, 2001) (Cf., Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985)); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 944, 214 USPQ 761, 767 (CCPA 1982); In re Goodman (CA FC) 29 USPQ2d 2010 (12/3/1993)).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
- Mahalaha et al. U.S. Patent No. 8,488,774, teaches a predictive call routing system that includes a real-time decision engine to receive information about a customer and identify a skill that is useful for providing service to the caller. The decision engine identifies the skill by generating scores for a plurality of statistical models using the statistical models and parameters associated with the caller, each statistical model representing a correlation between a subset of parameters and an action that may be performed or requested to be performed by the caller, the score for each statistical model being generated using the statistical model and the subset of parameters associated with the statistical model, and identifies a skill based on the scores. The system includes a call router to route a call from the customer to a representative who has the skill.
- Conway et al. U.S. Patent No. 9,565,312, teaches methods and systems designed o route customer communications to the best agent or best available agent. The methods include receiving a customer communication, predicting a demographic profile of the customer associated with the customer communication, and providing a routing recommendation to route the customer to an agent based on the prediction and historical customer data.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARGON N NANO whose telephone number is (571)272-4007. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 AM-3:30 PM. M.S.T..
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, Nicholas Taylor can be reached at 571 272 3889. 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.
/SARGON N NANO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2443
Prosecution Insights