DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
This Action is in response to communications filed on 08/11/2026.
Claims 1, 4, 8, 11, 15 and 18 have been amended. There are no new or canceled claims.
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 non-final office Action mailed on 05/14/2026, claims 1, 4, 8, 11, 15 and 18 were objected to because of minor informalities. In the response filed on 08/11/2026, applicant amends the claims in an attempt to obviate the objections. These amendments to claims 4, 11, and 18 are acceptable, and as a result, the respective claim objections made in the non-final Office Action have been withdrawn.
However, neither the applicant’s remarks, nor the amendments to independent claims 1, 8 and 15 fully address all the claim objections made in the non-final Office Action, and therefore the respective objections to independent claims 1, 8 and 15 persist. See claim objections below for more details.
Response to Arguments Regarding Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
In the non-final office Action mailed on 05/14/2026, claims 1-20 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being incomplete for omitting essential steps. The applicant’s arguments, see page 10-12 of REMARKS, filed 08/11/2026, with respect to Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) made in the non-final Office Action mailed on 05/14/2026 have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments Regarding Double Patenting Rejections
In the non-final office Action mailed on 05/14/2026, claims were provisionally rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims of co-pending application No. 18924363. In the response filed on 08/11/2026, applicant filed a Terminal Disclaimer to overcome the Double Patenting Rejections. As a result, the Double Patenting Rejections are withdrawn.
Response to Arguments Regarding Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The Applicant's amendment/ arguments, see page 13-18 of REMARKS, filed 08/11/2026, with respect to Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In the response filed on 08/11/2026, applicant puts forth in substance that:
“Miklos Does Not Teach "Transmit and Monitor Communication Activity Between End User Systems and Entity Systems Via At Least Two Communication Channels.
Miklos is directed to generating and applying outgoing communication templates by grouping a corpus of a single user's own previously-sent outgoing communications into clusters and extracting fixed and transient segments therefrom. See Miklos, Abstract; [0002]-[0003]. Miklos is fundamentally concerned with assisting a single user in autocompleting that user's own outgoing draft message based on the user's prior sent messages - as a user drafts an outgoing email, the text she types may be continuously and/or periodically compared to one or more outgoing communication templates to determine a best match (Miklos, [0003]). This is a one- directional, single-user drafting assistance function. Miklos does not teach or suggest 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 via at least two communication channels. The Examiner's mapping equates analyzing a corpus of a user's outgoing communications Miklos, [0002]) with monitoring bidirectional activity between two distinct system types across multiple channels, but analyzing outgoing messages to generate autocomplete templates is categorically different from monitoring the multi-party, multi-channel communication activity recited in Claim 1. The Examiner further relies on Miklos's network interface subsystem (Fig. 6:616) as a channel interface module, but a general-purpose network interface that facilitates outbound template-based drafting is not a module configured to transmit and monitor communication activity between the one or more end user systems and the one or more entity systems via at least two communication channels.” (See page 14 of REMARKS, filed 08/11/2026).
Applicant argues that Examiner's mapping equates analyzing a corpus of a user's outgoing communications (Miklos, [0002]) with monitoring bidirectional activity between two distinct system types across multiple channels. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., monitoring bidirectional activity) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). 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).
Examiner also emphasizes that the claim only recites “transmit and monitor, by the channel interface module, communication activity…”. The term “communication activity” is not limiting to certain type of activity in the claim, and receiving communication activity is not contemplated by the claimed invention. Therefore, for this additional reason, applicant’s reliance on “bidirectional activity” is baseless.
Furthermore, applicant admits that “Miklos is directed to generating and applying outgoing communication templates by grouping a corpus of a single user's own previously-sent outgoing communications into clusters and extracting fixed and transient segments therefrom” (see page 14 lines 5-7 of REMARKS, filed 08/11/2026), and “analyzing outgoing messages”. Examiner concurs that the cited reference is analyzing outgoing messages. However, cited reference to Miklos is not limited to monitoring only outgoing emails, but rather monitoring multi-modal communications such as outgoing and incoming messages, emails, etc. (see ¶ 17-19, 34). For these reasons, the applicant’s arguments are non-persuasive.
“Miklos Does Not Teach "Modify, By a Communication Modification Interface, a Communication Generated By the Communication Planning Module.
The Examiner maps this limitation to Miklos's autocomplete suggestion mechanism, specifically the teaching that "generated outgoing communication templates may be usable to automatically populate at least portions of subsequent outgoing communications before and/or as those subsequent outgoing communications are being drafted or otherwise prepared" (Miklos, [0003]). However, Claim 1 requires: (1) the communication planning module, among other things generates a communication, and (2) a communication modification interface then, among other things modifies that previously-generated communication. Miklos's autocomplete operates contemporaneously with and during the drafting process - the template suggestion and the user's drafting are simultaneous. There is no pre-generated communication that is subsequently modified through a modification interface. Miklos never discloses a system in which a communication planning module, among other things, first generates a complete or substantially complete communication, and a separate modification interface is then used to revise that generated communication. The mapping conflates real-time drafting assistance with the claimed "generate" and "modify".” (See page 14-15 of REMARKS, filed 08/11/2026).
Applicant argues that there is no “pre-generated communication that is subsequently modified through a modification interface”. However, Miklos's example in the same paragraph [0003] suggests otherwise. For example, as a user drafts an outgoing email, the text she types may be continuously and/or periodically compared to one or more outgoing communication templates to determine a best match. The outgoing communication template considered to best match the thus-far typed text may be used to autocomplete at least some of the user's email, to suggest possible autocompletions. Here, the user’s draft of an outgoing email corresponds to “generated communication”, and using outgoing communication template to then attempt to autocomplete that outgoing communication corresponds to “modifying” it.
Furthermore, Fig.4A (reproduced in the left below) shows an outgoing email 400 is being drafted, e.g., by the same user that sent email 300 or a different user having a similar context. So, this email 400 in Fig.4A represents “pre-generated communication”. In FIG. 4B (reproduced in the right below), the entire message of the email has been populated with either segments of text classified as fixed (e.g., segments 444-466), or fillable placeholders for segments deemed transient (e.g., segments 468-474) enabling the user to select, accept, and/or reject the auto-populated text as it appears (see [0039]-[0040]). This email 400 in Fig.4B represents “pre-generated communication that is subsequently modified through a modification interface”. For this reason, the applicant’s arguments are non-persuasive.
PNG
media_image1.png
391
426
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[Wingdings font/0xE0]
PNG
media_image2.png
393
453
media_image2.png
Greyscale
“Miklos Does Not Teach "Store, By the Communication Planning Module, the Modification Made to the Communication in the Database." The Examiner maps this limitation to Miklos's teaching that "outgoing communications may be analyzed to generate outgoing communication templates" (Miklos, [0017], Fig. 1:154) and to general storage of emails (Miklos, [0034]). But Miklos's storage is of template patterns extracted from analyzed outgoing communications - Miklos learns and stores template structures derived from prior messages. Miklos does not teach, among other things, storing a user-made modification to a specific pre- generated communication in the database. The claimed limitation requires that when a user modifies a communication that the planning module generated, that specific modification is stored. Miklos's learning-based template storage is fundamentally different in purpose, object, and operation from the claimed storage of a user's modification to a generated communication. The Examiner's mapping conflates storage of abstracted template patterns with storage of a discrete modification event, and thus does not establish that Miklos teaches this limitation.” (See page 15 of REMARKS, filed 08/11/2026).
Applicant argues that the claimed limitation requires that when a user modifies a communication that the planning module generated, that specific modification is stored. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., storing a user-made modification to a specific pre-generated communication in the database, or when a user modifies a communication that the planning module generated, that specific modification is stored) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). 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).
The claim only recites “modifying a generated communication, and storing the modification made to the communication in the database”. As set forth above, Miklos adequately teaches notion of “modifying a generated communication” prior to sending the communication (see at least in paragraph [0003]). Miklos further teaches that the sent emails are stored (see [0034]), and textual similarity between emails may be determined using the raw text of emails, reduced-dimensionality feature sets created using emails (e.g., “bags of words”) and various related statistics (e.g., term frequency-inverse document frequency), and so forth. Therefore, Miklos adequately suggests “storing the modification made to the communication in the database” as well.
“Miklos Does Not Teach "Transmit, By the Channel Interface Module, an Initial Communication Generated By the Communication Planning Module." The Examiner maps this limitation to Miklos's teaching that "server(s) facilitate transmission of outgoing communications" (Miklos, [0020]) and that a draft response may be automatically populated using templates (Miklos, [0051]-[0053]). However, Miklos is directed to assisting a user in drafting a response to an incoming communication - not independently generating and transmitting an initial outbound communication. Miklos, [0051] discloses that "a user may receive a communication such as an email that conforms to a particular pattern, and a draft response may be automatically populated using one or more templates." This is reactive template-assisted drafting in response to a received email, not the, among other things, generation and transmission of an initial outbound communication as required by Claim 1. In Miklos, the user still composes and sends the message - the system assists with autocomplete. Claim 1, by contrast, requires the communication planning module to generate the initial communication and the channel interface module to transmit it - an outbound operation that is not taught by Miklos's assisted-drafting disclosure.” (See page 15-16 of REMARKS, filed 08/11/2026).
Applicant argues that Miklos is directed to assisting a user in drafting a response to an incoming communication - not independently generating and transmitting an initial outbound communication. In response to the applicant’s arguments, it is noted that the concepts in Miklos are not limited to only drafting a response to an incoming communication. For e.g., Fig.4A (reproduced above) shows an outgoing email 400 is being drafted, e.g., by the same user that sent email 300 or a different user having a similar context (see [0039]-[0040]). So, this “daily report” email in this context is neither a response email, nor a follow-up email that is a part of any existing communication thread. This is just a new email created and sent on a daily basis (“initial communication” being transmitted). Therefore, examiner disagrees that Miklos Does Not Teach "transmit, by the channel interface module, an initial communication generated by the communication planning module”, as currently claimed.
“Miklos's Components Do Not Constitute the Claimed "Communication Planning Module.
The Examiner maps Claim 1's "communication planning module" to two separate components of Miklos: first, Miklos's "cluster engine" (T[0022]) for the system architecture limitation, and second, Miklos's "auto generation engine 240" (TT[0031]-[0033]) for the limitation requiring the communication planning module to store the modification made to a communication in the database. Neither mapping is correct, and the Examiner's reliance on two entirely different Miklos components to satisfy a single claimed module highlights the fundamental incompatibility between Miklos and the claimed system architecture.
With respect to the architecture limitation, Miklos's cluster engine ([0022]) is disclosed as a component that groups and clusters a user's corpus of previously outgoing communications into clusters and extracts fixed and transient text segments for template generation. This is a text-analysis and template-learning function operating exclusively on historical message data. It does not plan, generate, modify, transmit, or score communications. Claim 1's communication planning module, by contrast, is required, among other things, to generate communications for transmission, receive and store modifications to those generated communications, assign sentiment scores to received responses, and transmit follow-up communications based on escalation procedures. These are, among other things, active outbound communication management operations that bear no structural or functional relationship to the template-clustering analytics function of Miklos's cluster engine. Mapping a historical text-clustering engine to a module that plans, generates, and manages live communications reflects impermissible hindsight reconstruction of the claimed invention from unrelated functional components of Miklos.” (See page 16-17 of REMARKS, filed 08/11/2026).
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Applicant argues that the Examiner maps Claim 1's "communication planning module" to two separate components of Miklos. In response to applicant's argument, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary embodiment may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary embodiment; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references or embodiments. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, and as set forth herein, combination of cited references teaches each and every limitation claimed because the disclosed embodiment(s) reads on the claimed limitations as currently recited.
“With respect to the "store the modification" limitation, the Examiner relies instead on Miklos's auto generation engine 240 (11[0031]-[0033]), which is disclosed as a component that selects and applies an outgoing communication template to auto-generate data used to populate portions of an outgoing communication draft. Auto generation engine 240 is a template-application function: it selects a matching template and provides autocomplete data to fill in portions of a message a user is drafting. This is not storing a modification made to a generated communication. Claim 1 requires, among other things: the communication planning module generates a communication, a user modifies that generated communication via a communication modification interface, and the communication planning module stores that user-made modification in the database. Auto generation engine 240 does none of these things - it does not receive a user modification, it does not store a modification event, and it operates by pushing template data into a draft, not by recording changes made by a user to a pre-generated communication. The Examiner conflates an auto-populate function with a store-modification function, which are categorically distinct operations.” (See page 17 of REMARKS, filed 08/11/2026).
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “a user modifies generated communication via a communication modification interface”, “receive a user modification, and/or “store a modification event”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). 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).
The claim only recites “modifying, by a communication modification interface, a communication generated…, and store… the modification made to the communication in the database”. As set forth above, Miklos adequately teaches notion of “modifying a generated communication” prior to sending the communication (see paragraph [0003]). Miklos further teaches that the sent emails are stored (see [0034]), and textual similarity between emails may be determined using the raw text of emails, reduced-dimensionality feature sets created using emails (e.g., “bags of words”) and various related statistics (e.g., term frequency-inverse document frequency), and so forth. Therefore, Miklos adequately suggests “storing the modification made to the communication in the database” as well.
“The Examiner Has Not Established an Adequate Rationale for Combining the References. Applicant respectfully submits that the Examiner has not established an adequate rationale for combining Miklos with the secondary reference to arrive at the claimed invention. The Examiner asserts that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated "to be able to retain more customers, increase repeated purchases and create more value from the customers" May 14, 2026, Office Action, page 23). Applicant respectfully submits that this stated rationale is directed to a business objective and provides no articulated reasoning with rational underpinning as to why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have modified the template-autocompletion system of Miklos - which is fundamentally directed to assisting a single user in drafting that user's own outgoing messages - to incorporate response-driven sentiment scoring and escalation-based follow up communications.” (see page 17 of REMARKS, filed 08/11/2026).
In response to the applicant’s argument, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
In this case, examiner notes that 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 (also see page 19 of non-final Office Action mailed on 05/14/2026):
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 in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
The examiner also emphasizes that, for each of the rejections of claims in the non-final Office Action mailed on 05/14/2026, examiner first presents differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. The examiner then articulates that 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 analogous arts (in this case, Miklos with Gorny) to derive the claimed invention. Finally, the examiner presents conclusory remarks as to why one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such modification. For each claim rejected under 103, the examiner painstakingly presents objective evidence, from the prior art, indicating obviousness (also see page 19-28 of non-final Office Action mailed on 05/14/2026). The rejection of claims 1-20 as obvious over Miklos et al. (US 20190205371 A1) in view of Gorny et al. (US 20170270099 A1) is, therefore, maintained.
“Applicant respectfully notes that the proposed combination would change the principle of operation of the primary reference. MPEP § 2143.01, subsection VI, states verbatim: "If proposed modification would render the prior art invention being modified unsatisfactory for its intended purpose, then there is no suggestion or motivation to make the proposed modification." MPEP § 2143.01, subsection VI, further states verbatim: "If the proposed modification or combination of the prior art would change the principle of operation of the prior art invention being modified, then the teachings of the references are not sufficient to render the claims prima facie obvious." The principle of operation of Miklos is the analysis of a corpus of a user's own previously sent outgoing communications to generate templates that autocomplete that same user's subsequent outgoing drafts before or as they are being prepared (see Miklos, paragraph [0003]). Grafting onto Miklos a scheme that instead operates on an incoming response received from a separate party, assigns a sentiment score to that received response, and transmits escalation-based follow up communications would fundamentally alter the template-drafting-assistance principle upon which Miklos operates.” (See page 18 of REMARKS, filed 08/11/2026).
In response to the applicant’s arguments, it is noted that the cited reference to Miklos is generally directed to methods, apparatus and computer-readable media (transitory and non-transitory) for analyzing a corpus of outgoing communications such as emails, transcribed voicemails, letters, etc., to generate one or more templates that are usable to automatically populate at least a portion of one or more subsequent outgoing communications. Applicant argues that grafting onto Miklos a scheme that instead operates on an incoming response received from a separate party, assigns a sentiment score to that received response, and transmits escalation-based follow up communications would fundamentally alter the template-drafting-assistance principle upon which Miklos operates. But applicant fails to explain how it would change the principle of operation of the prior art invention or how the invention being modified will become unsatisfactory for its intended purpose. 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 35 USC § 103 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.
“Applicant respectfully submits that the Examiner's proposed combination further relies on impermissible hindsight reconstruction. As set forth in MPEP § 2145, subsection X.A., verbatim: "Any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning, but so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made and does not include knowledge gleaned only from applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper." Applicant respectfully submits that the only roadmap for selecting the disparate teachings the Examiner seeks to combine - a single-user outgoing-template autocompletion system on the one hand, and response-driven sentiment scoring with escalation procedures on the other - is Applicant's own specification and claims. Absent Applicant's disclosure, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had no reason to combine these disparate teachings in the particular manner recited in Claim 1.” (See page 18 of REMARKS, filed 08/11/2026).
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 1, 4, 8, 11, 15 and 18 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites the limitation “based, at least in part, one or more escalation procedures” (see last line). Examiner recommends amending it to recite “based, at least in part, on one or more escalation procedures”.
Claim 8 and 15 recite similar limitations as recited in claim 1. Therefore, the claim objection, as set forth above, also applies to the claims.
Appropriate correction is required.
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) 1-3, 8-10, and 15-17 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 et al. (hereinafter, 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 operation of the system (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 [0029]; Operations performed by cluster engine 124, segment classification engine 128, and/or template generation engine 132 may be performed on individual computer systems, distributed across multiple computer systems, or any combination of the two. These one or more computer systems may be in communication with each other and other computer systems over one or more networks);
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 via at least two communication channels (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 (“communication channels”) such as emails, voicemails, letters, etc.);
store, by the channel interface module, the communication activity in the database (see [0034]; emails may be stored);
modify, by a communication modification interface, a communication generated by the communication planning module (see [0003] Generated outgoing communication templates may be usable to automatically populate at least portions of subsequent outgoing communications before and/or as those subsequent outgoing communications are being drafted or otherwise prepared. For example, as a user drafts an outgoing email, the text she types may be continuously and/or periodically compared to one or more outgoing communication templates to determine a best match. The outgoing communication template considered to best match the thus-far typed text may be used to autocomplete at least some of the user's email, to suggest possible autocompletions);
store, by the communication planning module, the modification made to the communication in the database (see [0017] in view of Fig.1:154; outgoing communications may be analyzed to generate outgoing communication templates; also see [0031]-[0033]; auto generation engine 240 may select and apply an outgoing communication template; also see [0034]; emails may be stored); and
transmit (see [0020]; server(s) facilitate transmission of outgoing communications), by the channel interface module, an initial communication generated by the communication planning module (see [0051]; a user may receive a communication such as an email that conforms to a particular pattern, and a draft response may be automatically populated using one or more templates; also see [0052]-[0053]; the system determines that it is time to automatically populate at least a portion of an outgoing message, at block 512, the system may select an outgoing communication template that best matches the subsequent outgoing communication being drafted and/or the context of the user that is drafting it; the system may apply the selected outgoing communication template to automatically populate at least a portion of the user's outgoing communication. In the example above, for instance, an outgoing template may be applied to automatically complete the user's outgoing message as follows: “On my way home . . . want me to stop at the store to pick up baby formula?”).
Miklos does not explicitly disclose in response to receiving a response to the initial communication, assign, by the communication planning module, a sentiment score to the received response, wherein the sentiment score is determined based on one or more stored sentiment criteria; and transmit, by the communication planning module, one or more follow up communications to the received response based, at least in part, one or more escalation procedures.
However, in an analogous art, Gorny discloses:
in response to receiving a response to the initial communication, assign, by the communication planning module, a sentiment score to the received response (see [0013]-[0015]; monitoring relationships and communication activity between customers and representatives of a company, such as for example, a service center; customer's sentiment is captured with every interaction; measuring the sentiment of a customer and a representative throughout the interaction of their communication activity and provides a company, such as, a service center with a real-time response, based on the customer's and/or the representative's sentiments; 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.”), wherein the sentiment score is determined based on one or more stored sentiment criteria (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); and
transmit, by the communication planning module, one or more follow up communications to the received response based, at least in part, one or more escalation procedures (see [0063]; Based on the sentiment, system administrator 110 may trigger a predetermined process for the representative to deescalate the sentiment of the user of one or more customers 120, to a satisfactory level; also see [0067]-[0068]; administrator 110 may automatically reword the chat message, provide a message to the representative to correct the chat message and/or escalate the chat message to a manager. System administrator 110 would trigger automated processes, responses, suggestions for the representative or transfer the communication activity to another representative or manager).
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 assign a sentiment score to the received response, wherein the sentiment score is determined based on one or more stored sentiment criteria; and to transmit one or more follow up communications to the received response based, at least in part, one or more escalation procedures.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to be able to retain more customers, increase repeated purchases and create more value from the customers (Gorny: [0014]).
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 one or more stored sentiment criteria comprise one or more keyword criteria (see [0031]; determines the sentiment score based on… words used by the customer and various other factors; also see [0057]-[0059]; also see [0063]-[0065]; For example and continuing with the above example, in which a user associated with customers 120 opens a communication channel and types into the chat window “I am getting choppy audio on my VOW phone,” system administrator 110 represents the sentiment of the user by a numerical value, a color code and/or a series of phrases. In one embodiment, and based on the adjacent words “choppy audio,” system administrator 110 displays a numerical value of, for example, a score of 1 out of a score of 1-10 on one or more communication devices 148 of the representative of the one or more service centers).
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 so that the one or more stored sentiment criteria comprise one or more keyword criteria.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to be able to retain more customers, increase repeated purchases and create more value from the customers (Gorny: [0014]).
As for Claims 9 and 16, the claims depend on claim 8 and 15 respectively, but do 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, including at least two communication channels (see [0002]; analyzing (“monitor”) a corpus of outgoing communications such as emails, voicemails, letters, etc.). In addition, Gorny further discloses wherein the one or more escalation procedures comprise one or more follow up communication options in a different communication channel than used by the initial communication (see [0063]; Based on the sentiment, system administrator 110 may trigger a predetermined process for the representative to deescalate the sentiment of the user of one or more customers 120, to a satisfactory level; also see [0067]-[0068]; administrator 110 may automatically reword the chat message, provide a message to the representative to correct the chat message and/or escalate the chat message to a manager. System administrator 110 would trigger automated processes, responses, suggestions for the representative or transfer the communication activity to another representative or manager; examiner articulates that given the primary reference already teaches corpus of outgoing communications such as emails, voicemails, letters, etc. to choose from, by transferring the communication activity to another representative or manager, it would be obvious that the representative or manager will have corpus of outgoing communications such as emails, voicemails, letters, etc. to choose from as option).
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 so that the one or more escalation procedures comprise one or more follow up communication options in a different communication channel than used by the initial communication.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to be able to retain more customers, increase repeated purchases and create more value from the customers (Gorny: [0014]).
As for Claims 10 and 17, the claims depend on claim 8 and 15 respectively, but do 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.
Claim(s) 4, 11, and 18 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 Eden et al. (hereinafter, Eden, US 4583090 A).
Regarding claim 4, Miklos (modified by Gorny) discloses the system of claim 1, as set forth above. Miklos (modified by Gorny) does not explicitly disclose wherein the server is further configured to: control a complexity and a length of a communication, by the configuration module, in response to a receiving of a change in a complexity level.
Eden discloses wherein the server is further configured to: control a complexity and a length of a communication, by the configuration module, in response to a receiving of a change in a complexity level (see Col.5: lines 14-30; The structure and length of the message format is variable and selected by the control computer to provide sufficient length and complexity desired).
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 Eden with Miklos and Gorny to control a complexity and a length of a communication, by the configuration module, in response to a receiving of a change in a complexity level.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated so that the loads may be individually addressed and/or so that very rapid transmission rates can be obtained (see Eden: Col.5: lines 14-30).
As for Claims 11 and 18, the claims depend on claim 8 and 15 respectively, but do 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.
Claim(s) 5-6, 12-13, and 19-20 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) 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 wherein the server is further configured to: display a campaign configuration interface comprising one or more drop-down menus listing one or more of: one or more campaign communication channels, one or more first communication configuration options, one or more second communication configuration options and one or more escalation options for a first communication.
Demant discloses wherein the server is further configured to: display a campaign configuration interface comprising one or more drop-down menus listing one or more of: one or more campaign communication channels, one or more first communication configuration options, one or more second communication configuration options and one or more escalation options for a first communication (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 so that the server is further configured to: display a campaign configuration interface comprising one or more drop-down menus listing one or more of: one or more campaign communication channels, one or more first communication configuration options, one or more second communication configuration options and one or more escalation options for a first communication.
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 do 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.
Regarding claim 6, Miklos (modified by Gorny) discloses the system of claim 1, as set forth above. Miklos (modified by Gorny) does not explicitly disclose wherein the server is further configured to: display an email configuration interface comprising a list of email templates.
Demant discloses wherein the server is further configured to: display an email configuration interface comprising a list of email templates (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 so that the server is further configured to display an email configuration interface comprising list of email templates.
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 13 and 20, the claims depend on claim 8 and 15 respectively, but do not teach or further define over the limitations in claim 6. Therefore, claims 13 and 20 are rejected for same reasons.
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 SUNDARAM et al. (hereinafter, SUNDARAM, US 20170213242 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 wherein the server is further configured to: configure, by the configuration module, one or more campaigns using one or more communication channels.
SUNDARAM discloses wherein the server is further configured to: configure, by the configuration module, one or more campaigns using one or more communication channels (see [0012]-[0013] and [0032]; The servers 12 are configured to receive a campaign specification; The servers 12 are configured to execute the marketing campaign in the one or more selected communication channels according to the specified order/ specified campaign flow).
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 SUNDARAM with Miklos and Gorny so that the server is further configured to: configure, by the configuration module, one or more campaigns using one or more communication channels.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide a holistic view, in-depth analysis and actionable insights to help brands improve the performance of subsequent communications programs (see SUNDARAM: [0085]).
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.
Ciabarra et al. (US 20160226976 A1) ensures that the template covers common or frequently occurs portions of certain types of communications.
Bangalore (US 20090157827 A1) generates response email templates.
Cope et al. (US 20090144357 A1) uses template messages to optimize messaging system.
BUCK (US 20140120961 A1) generated text message template based on a plurality of text messages previously sent by a user.
Liu et al. (US 8886735 B1) discloses electronic messages using predefined templates.
Dotan-Cohen et al. (US 11546283 B2) generates messages from templates.
Cohen et al. (US 20080313283 A1) discloses automated population of message.
Foss et al. (US 11087285 B2) providing message templates in an enterprise system.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
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
