Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 08/13/2026 has been entered.
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
This Action is in response to RCE with amendments/ arguments filed on 08/13/2026.
No claims have been amended, cancelled or added.
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination. Claims 1, 8 and 15 are independent claims.
Claims 1-20 remain pending in this application.
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 .
Response to Arguments Regarding Claim Objections
In the final office Action mailed on 05/15/2026, claims 1, 8, and 15 were objected to due to minor informalities. In the response filed on 08/13/2026, applicant did not amend the claims to obviate the objections, but chose to argue against the objections in an attempt to overcome them. These arguments, see page 9 of REMARKS, filed 08/13/2026, with respect to objections to independent claims 1, 8 and 15 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In the response filed on 08/13/2026, applicant puts forth in substance that:
“The Examiner objects to the limitation "the one or more end user systems" in line 11 of Claim 1 as lacking antecedent basis.
Applicant respectfully notes that lines 5-6 of Claim 1 recite "provide one or more services, by the configuration module, to configure one or more end user systems" (Emphasis Added), and, accordingly the limitation the one or more end user systems" in line 11 of Claim 1 has antecedent basis.” (See page 9 of REMARKS, filed 08/13/2026).
Applicant indicates that the lines 5-6 of Claim 1 recite “one or more end user systems” which provides antecedent basis. However, “one or more end user systems” is also similarly recited in line 8 of original claim 1 (now line 9, as currently amended). Therefore, from the recitation of "the one or more end user systems" in line 11 (now line 14), it is not exactly clear which one of these preceding “one or more end user systems” is being referred to. When making the objection in the non-final office Action mailed on 03/26/2026, examiner had specifically pointed out lines 5-6 as well as line 8 due to which antecedent issue arise. Although claim 1 was since amended, the amendment does not necessarily make this distinction. Neither does the applicant’s argument address the occurrence of “one or more end user systems” in line 8 of original claim 1 (now line 9, as currently amended). For this reason, the applicant’s amendment/ argument are not persuasive.
“The Examiner objects to the limitation "the one or more entity systems" in the last two lines of Claims 8 and 15 as lacking antecedent basis.
Applicant respectfully notes that lines 6-7 of Claim 8 recites "configurations of graphical user interfaces displayed by one or more end user systems and one or more entity systems" (Emphasis Added), and, accordingly the limitation "the one or more entity systems" in the last two lines of Claim 8 has antecedent basis (Claim 15 similarly has antecedent basis for the reason given for Claim 8).” (See page 9 of REMARKS, filed 08/13/2026).
Applicant indicates that the lines 6-7 of Claim 8 recite “one or more entity systems” which provides antecedent basis. However, “one or more entity systems” is also similarly recited in line 9 of original claim 1 (now line 11, as currently amended). Therefore, from the recitation of "the one or more entity systems" in the 2nd-last line, it is not exactly clear which one of these preceding “one or more entity systems” is being referred to. When making the objection in the non-final office Action mailed on 03/26/2026, examiner had specifically pointed out lines 6-7 as well as line 9 due to which antecedent issue arise. Although claims 8 and 15 are since amended, the amendments do not necessarily make this distinction. Neither does the applicant’s argument address the occurrence of “one or more entity systems” in line 9 of original claim 1 (now line 11, as currently amended). For this reason, the applicant’s amendment/ argument are not persuasive.
Response to Arguments Regarding Claim Rejections - 35 USC §112
The applicant's amendment/arguments, see page 10 of REMARKS, filed 08/13/2026, with respect to rejections of claim under 35 USC §112 have been fully considered but they are non-persuasive. In the response filed on 08/13/2026, applicant puts forth in substance that:
“Applicant respectfully disagrees. Applicant respectfully submits that breadth is not indefiniteness. From MPEP 2173.04:
2173.04 Breadth Is Not Indefiniteness [R-10.2019]
Breadth of a claim is not to be equated with indefiniteness. In re Miller, 441 F.2d 689, 169 USPQ 597 (CCPA 1971); In re Gardner, 427 F.2d 786, 788, 166 USPQ 138, 140 (CCPA 1970) ("Breadth is not indefiniteness."). A broad claim is not indefinite merely because it encompasses a wide scope of subject matter provided the scope is clearly defined. But a claim is indefinite when the boundaries of the protected subject matter are not clearly delineated and the scope is unclear. For example, a genus claim that covers multiple species is broad, but is not indefinite because of its breadth, which is otherwise clear. But a genus claim that could be interpreted in such a way that it is not clear which species are covered would be indefinite (e.g., because there is more than one reasonable interpretation of what species are included in the claim).
Applicant respectfully submits that the scope of Applicant's claim is clearly defined. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests that the Examiner withdraw the rejection of Claims 1-20 as being indefinite.” (See page 10 of REMARKS, filed 08/13/2026).
In response to the applicant’s arguments, it must be pointed out that there are two separate requirements set forth in 35 U.S.C. 112(b) (see MPEP 2171 for more details):
(A) the claims must set forth the subject matter that the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention; and
(B) the claims must particularly point out and distinctly define the metes and bounds of the subject matter to be protected by the patent grant.
As clearly laid out in MPEP 2171, the inquiry during examination is patentability of the invention as the inventor or a joint inventor regards it. If the claims do not particularly point out and distinctly claim that which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as his or her invention, the appropriate action by the examiner is to reject the claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
The 35 USC §112(b) rejection made in the non-final office action mailed on 03/26/2026 was based on failing the first requirement (to set forth the subject matter that the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention based on the omission of essential matter/ steps) rather than failing the second requirement (due to indefiniteness). Applicant appears to argue about meeting the second requirement, indicating that the claim is broad, but otherwise the scope of claim is clearly defined.
The Applicant’s remarks do not provide any specific reasons as to why either the findings of fact or the legal conclusion that the claims are patent ineligible under first requirement of 35 USC § 112(b) is allegedly in error. Applicant’s remarks are only generalizations not tied to the facts of the cases that amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how.
In addition, examiner also recognizes that attempts to claim a process without setting forth any steps involved in the process generally raises an issue of indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph (see MPEP 2173.05(q)). Exemplary claim 1 is directed to a system for managing automated communications without setting forth any steps actually involved in automated communications or the management of automated communications.
Response to Arguments Regarding Claim Rejections - 35 USC §103
The applicant's amendment/arguments, see page 11-13 of REMARKS, filed 08/13/2026, with respect to rejections of claim under 35 USC §103 have been fully considered but they are non-persuasive. In the response filed on 08/13/2026, applicant puts forth in substance that:
“Applicant respectfully submits that Claims 1-20 contain unique and novel limitations that are not disclosed by Miklos, Gorny, Demant or Poon, either individually or in combination. Thus, Applicant respectfully traverses the Examiner's obviousness rejection under 35 U.S.C. §103 over Miklos, Gorny, Demant or Poon.
In rejecting Claim 1, the Examiner states the following:
…
Applicant respectfully disagrees. For further clarification, the Examiner's attention is directed to paragraphs [0040], [0050] and [0051] of the specification of Miklos, provided here for the Examiner's convenience:
…
Applicant respectfully submits that, among other things, Miklos fails to teach or disclose "wherein the one or more configurations of the graphical user interfaces displayed by the one or more entity systems are particular configurations specific to each of the one or more entity systems" as required by Claim 1, as amended. Among other things, Miklos simply teaches a generic communications template which does not inherently provide a specific configuration as it is merely a generic template. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully submits that Miklos does not teach or suggest "wherein the one or more configurations of the graphical user interfaces displayed by the one or more entity systems are particular configurations specific to each of the one or more entity systems" as required by Claim 1, as amended.
Additionally, Miklos is totally silent and does not teach, suggest or even hint at "one or more entity systems" and "one or more end user systems". Rather, Miklos teaches an email template used for generic email configuration. For example, Figure 6 of Miklos appears to teach a generic computer system. Even assuming arguendo that this suggests "one or more end user systems", a point which Applicant does not concede, then Miklos fails to teach or suggest or even hint at "one or more entity systems", as required by Applicant's claim. Accordingly, the Examiner simply has not shown that Miklos teaches the limitations of Applicant's claimed invention. Clarification is respectfully requested.
Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests that the rejection of Applicant's Claims 1- 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 be reconsidered and withdrawn.” (See page 11-13 of REMARKS, filed 08/13/2026).
In response to the applicant’s arguments that Miklos is totally silent and does not teach, suggest or even hint at "one or more entity systems" and "one or more end user systems", it is first noted that the claim does not clarify what are "one or more entity systems" and "one or more end user systems". Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant’s attention is taken to [0045] of Miklos that discloses that the sender of an email may is located at a particular worksite (e.g., a construction site, client place of business, disaster zone, battlefield, etc.). In view of the prior cited paragraphs [0040] and [0050]-[0051], examiner articulates that configurations of graphical user interfaces displayed by one or more end user systems and one or more entity systems is obvious as the disclosure pertains to using outgoing communication template to auto-populate message of the email comprising drop down menu with selectable options that enable the user to select, accept, and/or reject the auto-populated text as it appears. It would be obvious that such email customization/ configuration menu would appear to a user based on the context (see [0002] and [0007]) and regardless of whether the user composing the email is using one or more end user systems (such as device used when travelling from work towards home in an automobile as disclosed in [0052]) or one or more entity systems (such as device at client place of business as disclosed in [0045] cited above).
Applicant further argues that Miklos fails to teach or disclose "wherein the one or more configurations of the graphical user interfaces displayed by the one or more entity systems are particular configurations specific to each of the one or more entity systems" as required by Claim 1. However, this new limitation is taught by cited reference to Gorny (US 20170270099 A1) at paragraph [0037] and/or [0063]. For further details, please see rejection of claim 1 under 35 USC § 103 provided below.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 1, 8, and 15 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the one or more end user systems” in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim (for e.g., see lines 6-7 and/or line 9). Examiner recommends amending “one or more end user systems” in line 9 to recite “the one or more end user systems” to establish proper antecedent basis in the claim and thereby overcome the claim objection.
Claims 8 and 15 recite the limitation “the one or more entity systems…” in 2nd-last line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim (for e.g., see lines 6-7 and 9). Examiner recommends amending “one or more end user systems” in line 9 to recite “the one or more end user systems” to establish proper antecedent basis in the claim and thereby overcome the claim objection.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential steps, such omission amounting to a gap between the steps. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted steps are (please see below):
Claims 1 is directed to a system for managing automated communications, and recites, among other limitations:
store, by the channel interface module, the communication activity in the database;
search, by a rules engine of the communication planning module, communications stored in the database for one or more commonalities according to one or more frequency-based criteria;
in response to determining, by the rules engine, that at least one of the one or more commonalities meet the one or more frequency-based criteria, generate a new communication template;
access, by the one or more entity systems, sentiment criteria in the database to set one or more numerical values for one or more sentiment scores.
It is not seen how the steps of searching communications stored in the database for one or more commonalities according to one or more frequency-based criteria to generate a new communication template; and accessing sentiment criteria in the database to set one or more numerical values for one or more sentiment scores, as currently claimed, will result in automated communications. For e.g., just by generating a new communication template and setting sentiment scores without using either the template or the sentiment scores do not yield automated communications. Applicant is encouraged to add further limitations regarding task automations, in view of Fig.5 and/or 9, accounting to gaps between the steps.
Claims 8 and 15, the claims are also rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for independent claim 1, as same rationale applies.
Claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-20 depends on claims 1, 8 and 15, but does not remedy the deficiencies noted above. Therefore, dependent claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-20 are rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claims 1, 8 and 15, as same rationale apply.
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, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6, 8-11, 13, 15-18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miklos et al. (hereinafter, Miklos, US 20190205371 A1) in view of Gorny (US 20170270099 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Miklos discloses a system for managing automated communications (see [0053]; the system may apply the selected outgoing communication template to automatically populate at least a portion of the user's outgoing communication), comprising:
a system architecture (see [0053]) comprising a configuration module (see [0020]), a graphical user interface (see [0040] and [0051]), a channel interface module (see Fig.6:616), a communication planning module (see [0022]; Cluster engine), a database (see Fig.6:624) and a server (see Fig.6:610);
the server (see Fig.6:610), comprising a processor (see Fig.6:614) and memory (see Fig.6:625), is configured to:
provide one or more services, by the configuration module, to configure one or more end user systems (see [0020]; individual client devices may be configured (e.g., via a plugin) to incorporate user context information into outgoing communications);
generate and display, by the graphical user interface (see [0051] for a graphical user interface), one or more configurations of graphical user interfaces displayed by one or more end user systems and one or more entity systems (see [0040]; One or more graphical elements, such as one or more drop down menu selectable options, may appear (“one or more configurations of graphical user interfaces”) that enable the user to select, accept, and/or reject the auto-populated text as it appears; also see [0051]; graphical user interface that facilitates drafting of a new email or text message. Or, the user may have initiated dictation software to draft new outgoing correspondence; also see [0050]; The wildcards may, for instance, be manifested in a user interface of a user in the form of a fillable field; also see [0002], [0007] and [0045]; Suppose the sender is located at a particular worksite (e.g., a construction site, client place of business, disaster zone, battlefield, etc.); examiner articulates that configurations of graphical user interfaces displayed by one or more end user systems and one or more entity systems is obvious as the disclosure pertains to using outgoing communication template to auto-populate message of the email comprising drop down menu with selectable options that enable the user to select, accept, and/or reject the auto-populated text as it appears. It would be obvious that such email customization/ configuration menu would appear to a user based on the context (see [0002] and [0007]) and regardless of whether the user composing the email is using one or more end user systems (such as device used when travelling from work towards home in an automobile as disclosed in [0052]) or one or more entity systems (such as device at client place of business as disclosed in [0045] cited above));
transmit and monitor, by the channel interface module, communication activity between the one or more end user systems and the one or more entity systems (see [0020]; transmission of outgoing communications…analyzing (“monitor”) the outgoing communication ; also see [0054]; Network interface subsystem 616 provides an interface to outside networks and is coupled to corresponding interface devices in other computer systems; also see [0051]; user may receive a communication such as an email that conforms to a particular pattern; also see [0002]; analyzing (“monitor”) a corpus of outgoing communications such as emails, voicemails, letters, etc.);
store, by the channel interface module, the communication activity in the database (see [0034]; emails may be stored);
search, by a rules engine of the communication planning module, communications stored in the database for one or more commonalities (see [0022]; Cluster engine may… utilize various attributes of outgoing communications to group outgoing communications into clusters, such as metadata similarity, textual similarities, byte similarities, shared patterns, and so forth. For example, in some implementations, outgoing communications such as emails may be clustered additionally or alternatively based on textual similarities. For example, emails may be analyzed to determine shared terms, phrases, n-grams, n-grams plus frequencies, and so forth) according to one or more frequency-based criteria (see [0025]; if a count of occurrences of a segment of text across a particular cluster satisfies a particular threshold number of outgoing communications or a percentage, it may be considered fixed; also see [0026]; A suffix-array-based algorithm may include a loop that iterates over the suffixes in the suffix array to determine, at each step, … whether the suffix occurs at a frequency among outgoing communications of the cluster that satisfies a frequency threshold; also see [0034]); and
in response to determining, by the rules engine, that at least one of the one or more commonalities meet the one or more frequency-based criteria (see [0025]-[0026]; count of occurrences of a segment of text across a particular cluster satisfies a particular threshold number of outgoing communications or a percentage; suffix occurs at a frequency among outgoing communications of the cluster that satisfies a frequency threshold), generate a new communication template (see [0023]; A segment classification engine 128 and template generation engine 132 may then perform various downstream processing to generate outgoing communication templates; also see [0033]; outgoing communication in the form of an email 300 that may be grouped into a cluster with other similar emails, which then collectively may be used to generate outgoing communication templates).
Miklos does not explicitly disclose wherein the one or more configurations of the graphical user interfaces displayed by the one or more entity systems are particular configurations specific to each of the one or more entity systems; and access, by the one or more entity systems, sentiment criteria in the database to set one or more numerical values for one or more sentiment scores.
However, in an analogous art, Gorny discloses generate and display, by the graphical user interface, one or more configurations of graphical user interfaces displayed by one or more end user systems and one or more entity systems (see [0063]; An advanced user may also rate their own communication data 206 as, for example, ‘very positive’, ‘positive’, ‘negative’ or ‘very negative’ and, given enough ratings, a predictive model of future communications will be custom built for that specific customer; examiner articulates that the interface that allows the user/ customer to rate their own communication data and/or customized future communications corresponds to configurations of graphical user interfaces generated and displayed by one or more end user systems and one or more entity systems; also see [0037]), wherein the one or more configurations of the graphical user interfaces displayed by the one or more entity systems are particular configurations specific to each of the one or more entity systems (see [0037]; generate particular configurations of customer management system specific to each of the one or more service centers; As an example only and not by way of limitation, where one or more service centers is a customer service center, the identification information stored in service center data permits system administrator to generate a particularized user interface specific to the customer service center. Specifically, system administration module 222 provides a particularized user interface specific to the industry of service center, the types of customers served by one or more service centers; also see [0063]; An advanced user may also rate their own communication data 206 as, for example, ‘very positive’, ‘positive’, ‘negative’ or ‘very negative’ and, given enough ratings, a predictive model of future communications will be custom built for that specific customer; examiner articulates that the interface that allows the user/ customer to rate their own communication data corresponds to configurations of graphical user interfaces displayed by one or more end user systems); and
access, by the one or more entity systems, sentiment criteria in the database to set one or more numerical values for one or more sentiment scores (see [0015]; measuring the sentiment of a customer and a representative throughout the interaction of their communication activity; also see [0016]; the sentiment which may be indicated by a numerical value, a color code and/or a series of phrases, such as, “Happy,” “Satisfied,” “Content,” “Not Satisfied,” and “Not Happy.”; also see [0028]; monitoring and scoring user sentiments based on topics, channels, response times, and other sentiment criteria; also see [0057]-[0059] in view of Fig.4:406).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Gorny with Miklos to generate and display, by the graphical user interface, one or more configurations of graphical user interfaces displayed by one or more end user systems and one or more entity systems, wherein the one or more configurations of the graphical user interfaces displayed by the one or more entity systems are particular configurations specific to each of the one or more entity systems; and to access, by the one or more entity systems, sentiment criteria in the database to set one or more numerical values for one or more sentiment scores.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to identify the sentiment of the email communication and automate an appropriate response or another action (Gorny: [0015]).
As for Claim(s) 8 and 15, the claims list all the same elements of claim 1, but in a computer-implemented method; and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium embodied with software for managing automated communication (see Miklos [0002]) form to carry out the steps of claim 1, rather than the system form. Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection to claim 1 applies equally as well to claims 8 and 15.
Regarding claim 2, Miklos (modified by Gorny) discloses the system of claim 1, as set forth above. In addition, Gorny further discloses wherein the configuration module is further configured to: update, by the configuration module, one or more of: entity systems data, end user systems data, communications data, templates data, and branding data (see [0041]; system administration module 222 receives, processes, updates, creates, and stores service center data 202 (“entity systems data”) and configuration data 204 (“end user systems data”)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Gorny with Miklos to update, by the configuration module, one or more of: entity systems data, end user systems data, communications data, templates data, and branding data.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to identify the sentiment of the email communication and automate an appropriate response or another action (Gorny: [0015]).
As for Claims 9 and 16, the claims depend on claim 8 and 15 respectively, but does not teach or further define over the limitations in claim 2. Therefore, claims 9 and 16 are rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 2.
Regarding claim 3, Miklos (modified by Gorny) discloses the system of claim 1, as set forth above. In addition, Miklos further discloses wherein the one or more frequency-based criteria comprise a threshold of a number of communications in a time period (see [0025]; if a count of occurrences of a segment of text across a particular cluster satisfies a particular threshold number of outgoing communications or a percentage, it may be considered fixed; also see [0026]; A suffix-array-based algorithm may include a loop that iterates over the suffixes in the suffix array to determine, at each step, … whether the suffix occurs at a frequency among outgoing communications of the cluster that satisfies a frequency threshold; also see [0022] and [0034]).
As for Claims 10 and 17, the claims depend on claim 8 and 15 respectively, but does not teach or further define over the limitations in claim 3. Therefore, claims 10 and 17 are rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 3.
Regarding claim 4, Miklos (modified by Gorny) discloses the system of claim 1, as set forth above. In addition, Gorny further discloses wherein the server is further configured to: assign, by the communication planning module, a sentiment score to a communication, based on the sentiment criteria (see [0015]; measuring the sentiment of a customer and a representative throughout the interaction of their communication activity; also see [0016]; the sentiment which may be indicated by a numerical value, a color code and/or a series of phrases, such as, “Happy,” “Satisfied,” “Content,” “Not Satisfied,” and “Not Happy.”; also see [0028]; monitoring and scoring user sentiments based on topics, channels, response times, and other sentiment criteria; also see [0057]-[0059] in view of Fig.4:406).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Gorny with Miklos to access, by the one or more entity systems, sentiment criteria in the database to set one or more numerical values for one or more sentiment scores.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to identify the sentiment of the email communication and automate an appropriate response or another action (Gorny: [0015]).
As for Claims 11 and 18, the claims depend on claim 8 and 15 respectively, but does not teach or further define over the limitations in claim 4. Therefore, claims 11 and 18 are rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 4.
Regarding claim 6, Miklos (modified by Gorny) discloses the system of claim 1, as set forth above. In addition, Miklos further discloses modify, by a communication modification interface of the configuration module, one or more selections of text of a communication (see [0032]; Based on the decision of template selection engine 239, an auto generation engine 240 may select and apply an outgoing communication template to auto generate data to be used to populate appropriate portions of outgoing communication).
As for Claims 13 and 20, the claims depend on claim 8 and 15 respectively, but does not teach or further define over the limitations in claim 6. Therefore, claims 13 and 20 are rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 6.
Claim(s) 5, 12, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miklos et al. (hereinafter, Miklos, US 20190205371 A1) in view of Gorny (US 20170270099 A1) in view of Demant et al. (hereinafter, Demant, US 20100058169 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Miklos (modified by Gorny) discloses the system of claim 1, as set forth above. Miklos (modified by Gorny) does not explicitly disclose generate a communication configuration interface, by the graphical user interface module, for selection of one or more communication options for a selected industry.
Demant discloses generate a communication configuration interface, by the graphical user interface, for selection of one or more communication options for a selected industry (see [0067]; fill a dropdown list in a user interface so that the user can choose a specific template; a filtered association may be used in a query to retrieve a variant for a template starting from the root node of the template at 710. Language, industry, country, region may be used as inputs).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Demant with Miklos and Gorny to generate a communication configuration interface, by the graphical user interface module, for selection of one or more communication options for a selected industry.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated so that the user can choose a specific template by using industry as an input (see Demant: [0067]).
As for Claims 12 and 19, the claims depend on claim 8 and 15 respectively, but does not teach or further define over the limitations in claim 5. Therefore, claims 12 and 19 are rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 5.
Claim(s) 7 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miklos et al. (hereinafter, Miklos, US 20190205371 A1) in view of Gorny (US 20170270099 A1) in view of Poon (US 20120197969 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Miklos (modified by Gorny) discloses the system of claim 1, as set forth above. Miklos (modified by Gorny) does not explicitly disclose access, by the channel interface module, communications data specifying a date and a time a particular communication should be sent; and transmit, by the channel interface module, the particular communication at the specified date and time.
Poon discloses access, by the channel interface module, communications data specifying a date and a time a particular communication should be sent (see [0006]; determining an exact date and time of the scheduled-time of sending the chat-room message, based on the time in local format and the time zone of the scheduled time in the chat-room message); and
transmit, by the channel interface module, the particular communication at the specified date and time (see [0006]; removing the chat-room message from the later queue, at the exact date and time, and sending the message to the other users of the chat-room).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Poon with Miklos and Gorny to access, by the channel interface module, communications data specifying a date and a time a particular communication should be sent; and transmit, by the channel interface module, the particular communication at the specified date and time.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated so that the chat-room sends the chat messages to the other users at a later time, according to schedules provided in the messages (see Poon: Abstract).
As for Claim 14, the claim depends on claim 8, but does not teach or further define over the limitations in claim 7. Therefore, claim 14 is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 7.
Additional References
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Gorny (US 20160078142 A1) provides a particularized user interface specific to the industry of entity.
Gorny (US 20160353310 A1) provides a particularized user interface specific to the industry of entity.
Shepherd et al. (US 20130046638 A1) facilitates the creation of variable data publishing marketing campaigns.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANDARVA KHANAL whose telephone number is (571)272-8107. The examiner can normally be reached MON-FRI, 0800-1700.
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, Kamal B Divecha can be reached at 571-272-5863. 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.
/SANDARVA KHANAL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2453
Prosecution Insights