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 .
1. This is in response to communication filed on 4/22/26 in which claims 1-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
2. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
3. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
4. Claims 1-2, 4-9, 11-13, 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Publication No. 2025/0307746 to Jennings, II et al.
a. As per claim 1, Jennings, II et al teaches a method of generating a sequential flow of electronic actions for a user (See paragraph [0015], users or administrators of a communication process flow management system may generate one or more communication process flows that include sets of actions to control communications between an entity (e.g., an organization of the user or the administrator) and a set of users), comprising: sensing, by a server, a flow trigger action (See paragraph [0042-0043]); scraping, by the server, characteristics of an electronic presence of the user (See paragraph [0037-0038]), wherein the server manages a website of the user (See paragraph [0043]); determining, by the server, a selection of actions and conditional splits to form the sequential flow of electronic actions for sub-users of the user (See paragraph [0041, 0049-0050, 0061-0062], for each respective path, a server associated with the communication process flow object may transmit an initial email to a respective user of a set of users. In some examples, at 515, a subset of users of the set of users may be associated with a respective path variation and therefore may receive a first variation of the email element), wherein the sequential flow of electronic actions include one or more electronic messages for the sub-users to solicit action by the sub-users and at least one other type of non-electronic message action, wherein the sub-users have visited the website of the user (See paragraph [0028], the system 100 may support the generation of a communication process flow that includes a set of actions to control electronic communications between an entity (e.g., a tenant) and a set of users. For example, the communication process flow may control an organization or company transmitting a marketing campaign email to a set of users associated with the organization (e.g., users that purchase products from the organization). In some cases, a marketing user, or a set of marketing users of the organization may generate a set of variations for at least two actions of the communication process flow); characterizing, by the server, user identifying information using a large language mode (LLM), the characteristics, and information of the sub-users (See paragraph [00035]); generating, by the server, electronic actions based on the characterized identifying information, and the determined sequential flow of electronic actions (See paragraph [0035, 0050], users may use an AI/ML model 240 of the server 205 to generate different variations of portions of an email); displaying, by the server, the electronic actions to the user (See paragraph [0041]); sensing actions of the user based on the displaying of the electronic messages (See paragraph [0044], user engagement); finalizing the electronic actions based on the sensed actions of the user (See paragraph [0044 and 0064], the AI/ML model may monitor the user engagement with the respective emails and follow-up emails to determine if a respective path variation satisfies a performance metric threshold); and electronically performing the one or more finalized electronic actions to the sub-users of the user (See paragraph [0072]).
b. As per claim 18, Jennings, II et teaches an apparatus, comprising: a flow server (See paragraph [0034]); a user server connected through a network to the flow server (See paragraph [0034-0035]); a plurality of sub-user computing devices connected through the network to the user server and the flow server (See paragraph [0015], users or administrators of a communication process flow management system may generate one or more communication process flows that include sets of actions to control communications between an entity (e.g., an organization of the user or the administrator) and a set of users); wherein the flow server is configured to: sense a flow trigger action (See paragraph [0042-0043]); scrape characteristics of an electronic presence of the user, wherein the server manages a website of the user (See paragraph [0037-0038 and 0043]); determine a selection of actions and conditional splits to form the sequential flow of electronic actions for sub-users of the user, wherein the sequential flow of electronic actions include one or more electronic messages for sub-users to solicit action by the sub-users and at least one other type of non-electronic message action, wherein the sub-users have visited the website of the user (See paragraph [0028], the system 100 may support the generation of a communication process flow that includes a set of actions to control electronic communications between an entity (e.g., a tenant) and a set of users. For example, the communication process flow may control an organization or company transmitting a marketing campaign email to a set of users associated with the organization (e.g., users that purchase products from the organization). In some cases, a marketing user, or a set of marketing users of the organization may generate a set of variations for at least two actions of the communication process flow); characterize user identifying information using a large language mode (LLM) the characteristics, and information of the sub-users (See paragraph [0035]); generate electronic actions based on the characterized identifying information, and the determined sequential flow of electronic actions (See paragraph [0041, 0049-0050, 0061-0062], for each respective path, a server associated with the communication process flow object may transmit an initial email to a respective user of a set of users. In some examples, at 515, a subset of users of the set of users may be associated with a respective path variation and therefore may receive a first variation of the email element); display electronic actions to the user (See paragraph [0041]); sense actions of the user based on the displaying of the one or more electronic messages (See paragraph [0044], user engagement); finalize the electronic actions based on the sensed actions of the user (See paragraph [0044 and 0064], the AI/ML model may monitor the user engagement with the respective emails and follow-up emails to determine if a respective path variation satisfies a performance metric threshold); and electronically perform one or more finalized electronic actions to sub-users of the user (See paragraph [0072]).
c. As per claim 2, Jennings, II et al teaches the claimed invention as described above. Furthermore, Jennings, II et al teaches wherein sensing the flow trigger action comprises at least monitoring a location of a computing device of a sub-user of the user (See paragraph [0042-0043]).
e. As per claim 4, Jennings, II et al teaches the claimed invention as described above. Furthermore, Jennings, II et al teaches wherein characterizing the user identifying information using the LLM and the characteristics comprises: entering the characteristics including a spoken language of the website of the user, a language of the website of the user, colors of the website of the user, images of the website of the user, and button selections of the website of the user; and receiving the characterized user identifying information (See paragraph [0062]).
f. As per claim 5, Jennings, II et al teaches the claimed invention as described above. Furthermore, Jennings, II et al teaches wherein determining the selection of actions and conditional splits to form the sequential flow of electronic actions for sub-users of the user, comprises receiving one or more selections of a plurality of pre-generated sequential flows of electronic actions from the user (See paragraph [0041 and 0055]).
g. As per claim 6, Jennings, II et al teaches the claimed invention as described above. Furthermore, Jennings, II et al teaches wherein determining the selection of actions and conditional splits to form the sequential flow of electronic messages for sub-users of the user, comprises receiving one or more selections of a plurality of sequential flows of electronic messages of similar users from the user (See paragraph [0041 and 0051]).
h. As per claim 7, Jennings, II et al teaches the claimed invention as described above. Furthermore, Jennings, II et al teaches wherein determining the selection of actions and conditional splits to form the sequential flow of electronic messages for sub-users of the user, comprises receiving one or more selections of a plurality of sequential flows of electronic messages adaptively generated from the user (See paragraph [0041, 0055 and 0067], variation creation selection component may be displayed via a first user interface of the computing device 610 that accesses the server 605 such that the server 605 receives the one or more user inputs via the variation creation selection component or based on a selection of the variation creation selection component).
k. As per claim 9, Jennings, II et al teaches the claimed invention as described above. Furthermore, Jennings, II et al teaches wherein displaying the one or more electronic actions to the user and sensing actions of the user based on the displaying of the one or more electronic actions comprises receiving from the user one or more of and acceptance, an approval, a non-acceptance, editing of the one or more actions (See paragraph [0042 and 0055]).
m. As per claim 11, Jennings, II et al teaches the claimed invention as described above. Furthermore, Jennings, II et al monitoring and tracking, by the server, responses of the sub-users to receiving the electronic actions; determining, by the server, a level of success of each of different of the electronic actions (See paragraph [0030, 0046], the system 100 may monitor the behavior of users routed through a set of paths to determine which paths are relatively more successful); and updating the generating of the electronic actions based on the determined level of success of each of different of the electronic actions (See paragraph [0030 and 0046], Based on such monitoring, the system 100 may use automation events for AI/ML models to dynamically allocate traffic to the relatively more successful paths).
n. As per claim 12, Jennings, II et al teaches the claimed invention as described above. Furthermore, Jennings, II et al teaches wherein updating the generating of the electronic actions comprises: feeding back the level of success of each of the different electronic actions to a generator that generated the different electronic actions (See paragraph [0030-0031, 0044 and 0046]).
o. As per claim 13, Jennings, II et al teaches the claimed invention as described above. Furthermore, Jennings, II et al teaches further comprising: sensing action of the sub-users in response to receiving the sequential flow of electronic actions (See paragraph [0044]); and feeding back the level of success of each of the sequential flow of electronic actions to a generator that generated the sequential flow of electronic actions (See paragraph [0030-0031, 0044 and 0046]).
r. As per claims 16, Jennings, II et al teaches the claimed invention as described above. Furthermore, Jennings, II et al teaches further comprising: generating, by the server, two or more versions of the sequential flows of electronic actions (See paragraph [0034]); electronically sending the two or more versions of the sequential flows of electronic messages to sub-users (See paragraph [0034]); monitoring actions of the sub-users in response to receiving the two or more versions of the sequential flows of electronic actions (See paragraph [0034]); and ranking the two or more versions of the sequential flows of electronic actions based on the monitored actions (See paragraph [0044 and 0053]).
s. As per claims 17, Jennings, II et al teaches the claimed invention as described above. Furthermore, Jennings, II et al teaches further comprising training a generator that generated the sequential flows of electronic actions based on the ranking of the two or more versions of the sequential flows of electronic actions (See paragraph [0053]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
6. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 2025/0307746 to Jennings, II et al in view of U.S. Publication 2026/0065349 to Vasvani et al.
a. As per claim 3, Jennings, II et al teaches the claimed invention as described above. Furthermore, Jennings, II et al teaches wherein scraping characteristics of the electronic presence of the user comprises one or more of scraping characteristics of a user website, scaping characteristics of other electronic messages of the user, scaping code of a current message of the user (See paragraph [0041 and 0043]), However, Jennings, II et al fails to teach wherein the scarping determines at least color preferences of the user.
Vasvani et al teaches wherein the scarping determines at least color preferences of the user (See paragraph [0045]).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teaching of Vasvani et al in the claimed invention of Jenning, II et al in order to generate interface based on user preferences.
7. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 2025/0307746 to Jennings, II et al in view U.S. Publication No. 2007/0294429 to Klassen et al.
a. As per claim 8, Jennings, II et al teaches the claimed invention as described above. Furthermore, Jennings, II et al teaches wherein the at lease one other type of non-electronic massage action includes throttling back an amount of data in electronic message generated for users when a conditional point of the sequential flow identifies that a computing device of a sub-user has a low quality link connection and a connection to a network would be improved by generating electronic messages that have less data.
Klassen et al teaches wherein the at least one other type of non-electronic massage action includes throttling back an amount of data in electronic message generated for users when a conditional point of the sequential flow identifies that a computing device of a sub-user has a low quality link connection and a connection to a network would be improved by generating electronic messages that have less data (See paragraph [0004 and 0016]).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teaching of Klassen et al in the claimed invention of Jennings, II et al in order to provide the best quality image to the user.
8. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 2025/0307746 to Jennings, II et al in view U.S. Patent No. 10,423977 to Ayars et al.
a. As per claim 10, Jennings, II et al teaches the claimed invention as described above. However, Jennings, II et al fails to explicitly teach further comprising: sensing action of the sub-users in response to receiving the one or more electronic actions wherein the sensed action include at least: sensing a sub-user visiting a physical location of the user, and sensing the sub-user purchasing a product or service of the user at a physical store location of the user.
Ayars et al teaches comprising: sensing action of the sub-users in response to receiving the one or more electronic wherein the sensed action include at least: sensing a sub-user visiting a physical location of the user, and sensing the sub-user purchasing a product or service of the user at a physical store location of the user (See col. 5, lines 65-67 and col. 6, lines 1-18).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teaching of Ayars et al in the claimed invention of Jennings, II et al in order to generate dynamic advertisement content based on the user’s location.
11. Claim 14-15 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 2025/0307746 to Jennings, II et al in view of U.S. Patent No. 12,591910 to Saur.
a. As per claim 14, Jennings, II et al teaches the claimed invention as described above. Furthermore, Jennings, II et al teaches: monitoring and tracking, by the server, responses of the sub-users to receiving the sequential flow of electronic actions (See paragraph [0064]); determining, by the server, a level of success of each of different of sequential flows of electronic actions (See paragraph [; and updating the generating of the sequential flows of electronic messages based on the determined level of success of each of different of the sequential flows of electronic actions (See paragraph [0055]). However, Jennings, II et al fails to explicitly teach wherein the at least one other type of non-electronic message action includes adjusting displays of computing devices of the sub-users to improve user-interface of the displays of the computing devices.
Saur teaches wherein the at least one other type of non-electronic message action includes adjusting displays of computing devices of the sub-users to improve user-interface of the displays of the computing devices (See col. 2, lines 6-19, having a plurality of display preferences and a plurality of adjustable content segments through a graphic and media tool targeted for at least one end-user interface, and wherein said content provider module includes a web-based interface studio mode to transform a plurality of content into said content per platform experience and adapted to modify said plurality of display and content segments for an interactive user interface).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teaching of Saur in the claimed invention of Jennings, II et al in order to personalized the user experience.
b. As per claim 15, Jennings, II et al teaches the claimed invention as described above. However, Jennings, II et teaches wherein the at least one other type of non-electronic message action includes updating the website of the user to improve operation by improving security of the website of the user, and further comprising: monitoring and tracking, by the server, responses of the sub-users to receiving the sequential flow of electronic actions; determining, by, the server, a level of success of each of different of sequential flows of electronic actions; and updating the generating of the sequential flows of electronic actions based on the determined level of success of each of different of the sequential flows of electronic actions.
Saur teaches wherein the at least one other type of non-electronic message action includes updating the website of the user to improve operation by improving security of the website of the user, and further comprising: monitoring and tracking, by the server, responses of the sub-users to receiving the sequential flow of electronic actions ; determining, by, the server, a level of success of each of different of sequential flows of electronic actions; and updating the generating of the sequential flows of electronic actions based on the determined level of success of each of different of the sequential flows of electronic actions
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teaching of Saur in the claimed invention of Jennings, II et al in order to personalized the user experience.
c. As per claim 19, Jennings, II et al teaches the claimed invention as described above. However, Jennings, II et al fails to explicitly teaches wherein the at least one other type of non-electronic message action includes adjusting displays of computing devices of the sub-users to improve user-interfaces of the displays of the computing devices.
Saur teaches wherein the at least one other type of non-electronic message action includes adjusting displays of computing devices of the sub-users to improve user-interfaces of the displays of the computing devices (See col. 2, lines 6-19).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teaching of Saur in the claimed invention of Jenning, II et al in order to personalized the user experience.
12. Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 2025/0307746 to Jennings, II et al in view of U.S. Patent No. 10,956879 to Eidson.
a. As per claim 20, Jennings, II et al teaches the claimed invention as described above. However, Jennings, II et al fails to explicitly teach wherein the at least one other type of non- electronic message action includes updating the website of the user to improve operation by improving security of the website of the user.
Eidson teaches wherein the at least one other type of non- electronic message action includes updating the website of the user to improve operation by improving security of the website of the user (See col. 2, lines 1-24).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teaching of Eidson in the claimed invention of Jennings, II et al in order to provide secure connection to the users.
Conclusion
13. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
14. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DJENANE BAYARD whose telephone number is (571)272-3878. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5.
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, John Follansbee can be reached at (571)272-3964. 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.
/DJENANE M BAYARD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2444
Prosecution Insights