Detailed Action
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The Office Actin is in response to claims filed on 10/29/2024 where claims 2-21 are pending and ready for examination. Claim 1 has been previously cancelled.
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.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 2-21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,160,352. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims from the Instant Application 18/930,921 are a broadened version of the claims from U.S. Patent No. 12,160,352 and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the teachings from U.S. Patent No. 12,160,352 to solve and/or contemplate the features and/or problems for the Instant Application.
The Examiner has conducted a side by side analysis of the all of the claims (see e.g. Independent claim 2 below)
Instant Application No. 18/930,921
US Patent No. 12,160,352
PNG
media_image1.png
194
468
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
280
414
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
587
393
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The examiner also conducted the side-by side analysis for independent claims 9 and 16 which are statutory equivalents of independent claim 1. They are also rejected based on the same analysis above.
The examiner conducted a side-by side analysis for the dependent claims (3-8,, 10-15, and 17-21). The dependent claims share the same and/or similar features
As an example of the dependent claims (e.g. dependent claim 4 of the instant application) analysis is illustrated below
Instant Application No. 18/930,921
US Patent No. 12,160,352
PNG
media_image4.png
208
430
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
271
514
media_image5.png
Greyscale
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the teachings from U.S. Patent No. 12,160,352 to solve and/or contemplate the features and/or problems for the Instant Application for the dependent claim(s).
As detailed above, the examiner conducted the side by side analysis for all of the dependent claims and they are rejected based on the same rationale.
Accordingly claims 2-21 are rejected under non-statutory double patenting.
Claims 2-21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. U.S. Patent No. 10,893,077. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims from the Instant Application 18/930,921 are a broadened version of the claims from U.S. Patent No. 10,893,077 and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the teachings from U.S. Patent No. 10,893,077 to solve and/or contemplate the features and/or problems for the Instant Application.
The Examiner has conducted a side by side analysis of the all of the claims (see e.g. Independent claim 2 below)
Instant Application No. 18/930,921
U.S. Patent No. 10,893,077
PNG
media_image1.png
194
468
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
280
414
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
320
270
media_image6.png
Greyscale
US Patent No. 10,893,077
PNG
media_image7.png
276
260
media_image7.png
Greyscale
(The above table is a continuation of the analysis of Instant Application and US Patent No. 10,893,077)
The examiner also conducted the side-by side analysis for independent claims 9 and 16 which are statutory equivalents of independent claim 1. They are also rejected based on the same analysis above.
The examiner conducted a side-by side analysis for the dependent claims (3-8,, 10-15, and 17-21). The dependent claims share the same and/or similar features
As an example of the dependent claims (e.g. dependent claim 8 of the instant application) analysis is illustrated below
Instant Application No. 18/930,921
U.S. Patent No. 10,893,077
PNG
media_image8.png
42
350
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
145
408
media_image9.png
Greyscale
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the teachings from U.S. Patent No. U.S. Patent No. 10,893,077 to solve and/or contemplate the features and/or problems for the Instant Application for the dependent claim(s).
As detailed above, the examiner conducted the side by side analysis for all of the dependent claims (3-8,, 10-15, and 17-21)and they are rejected based on the same rationale.
Accordingly claims 2-21 are rejected under non-statutory double patenting.
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.
Claims 2, 4, 9, 11, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson (US 2020/0404026) in view of Powell (US 2018/0253215)
Regarding claim 2, Johnson discloses a method of scheduling user-to-user service between users of different computing systems, comprising, by a computing platform:
exposing a first interface to a plurality of user-to-user platforms, wherein the plurality of user-to-user platforms provide independent computing environments (Johnson;
see e.g. [0023] “... the middleware computing platform 102 exposes the on-demand service request interface 102 exposed the on-demand service request interface 112 to the requesting network 112 ...”
see e.g. [0018] “... user-to-user service platforms ... “
see e.g. [0019] “The service platforms 118 of the requesting network 116 each provide independent computing environments that separately execute user-to-user service workflows for requesting users. In an example, the service platforms 118 can each be an independent telemedicine system that executes a telemedicine workflow ... user-to-user service workflow ...”
see e.g. Claim 1 “... exposing an on-demand service-request interface to a plurality of users-to-user service platforms, wherein the plurality of user-to-user service platforms provide independent computing environments that separately execute user-to-user workflows for requesting users);
receiving, via the first interface, a request from one of the plurality of user-to-user platforms platforms (Johnson;
see e.g. [0024] “... service request that is received from the requesting network ... “
see e.g., Claim 1 “... receiving, via the on-demand service-request interface, a service request from a particular platform of the plurality of user ...”
see e.g. Methodology illustrated in Fig. 3 [0010]
The Examiner notes the service request interface facilitates the reception of multiple service requests); ;
assigning the request to a servicing user of a plurality of servicing users based at least in part on information associated with the request and availability of the servicing user (Johnson;
see e.g. [0038] “... an assignment of a servicing user from the active user pool to the service request ... real-time service coordinator 106 so as to cause the assignment ...”
see e.g. [0052] “... automatically selects a servicing user ...”
see e.g., methodology illustrated in Fig. 4 [0011] comprising Step 408 “Automatically Select A Servicing User”
see e.g. Claim 1 “... assigning the service user to the service request ...”
see e.g. [0026] “... automatically execute assignments of servicing users to service requests in consideration of information included in the service requests .... “;
exposing a second interface to the servicing user user (Johnson;
see e.g. [0023] “... service provider interface ...”);
displaying, on the second interface, one or more events respectively corresponding to the one or more assigned requests (Johnson;
see e.g. [0054] “... the URL can direct to a page that prompts the assigned service user to initiate a user-user service workflow, thereby resulting in a service-start event”
see e.g. [0052] “... notifies the selecting servicing user ... accept or decline the request ... dashboard notification ...”
see e.g. [0019] “... a series or sequence of defined events such a s a service-start event, a service-end event, a cancel event ...”
see e.g. TABLE 1 ([0037]);
Johnson does not expressly disclose:
displaying, on the second interface for an event of the one or more events, a button corresponding to a uniform resource locator (URL) provided by the platform from which the assigned request is received, and wherein interaction with the button by the servicing user hosts a communication session between a requesting user and the servicing user based on the URL.
However in analogous art Powell discloses:
displaying, on the second interface for a button corresponding to a uniform resource locator (URL) provided by the platform , and wherein interaction with the button by the servicing user hosts a communication session (Powell;
see e.g. [0020] Generally, according to the techniques presented herein, the chat server 125 monitors text-based communications between two or more users or participants (at their respective user devices) to detect text (character) string (e.g., URL, SIP address, etc.) that represents a link to one of the known web-based meeting services as catalogued in database 130, and converts the text string to a graphical user interface element (e.g., a single click button) for display in-line in an entry of the text-based communication session, or elsewhere in a user interface window displayed to a user. The graphical user interface element indicates that it connects to the web-based meeting service, thereby enabling the user to join a web-based meeting (or connect to a web-based personal meeting room) with a single click action of an easily recognizable graphical user interface element.)
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Powell’s URL-button scheme. The motivation being the combined solution provides for implementing a known technique resulting in increased efficiencies of establishing communication sessions between users.
Johnson in view of Powell discloses:
displaying, on the second interface for an event of the one or more events, a button corresponding to a uniform resource locator (URL) provided by the platform from which the assigned request is received, and wherein interaction with the button by the servicing user hosts a communication session between a requesting user and the servicing user based on the URL (The combined solution per Powell provides for Johnson’s platform to display the URL-button which facilitates establishing a communication session between the request user and the servicing user)
Regarding claim 4, Johnson in view of Powell disclose the method of claim 2, wherein assigning the one or more requests to the servicing user comprises:
obtaining a specification associated with each of the plurality of requests (Johnson;
see e.g. [0050] “... servicing user type, qualification data and/or a service rate identifier ...”) ;
filtering the plurality of servicing users to identify a subset of servicing users based on the specification and one or more attributes of each of the plurality of servicing users users (Johnson;
see e.g. [0047] “... yield a list of the candidate servicing users ...”);
ranking the subset of servicing users (Johnson
see e.g. [0047] “... score or rank the candidate servicing user(s) ...”; and
selecting the servicing user from the subset of servicing users based on the ranking (Johnson;
see e.g. methodology in Fig. 4 comprising Step 408).
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Powell’s URL-button scheme. The motivation being the combined solution provides for implementing a known technique resulting in increased efficiencies of establishing communication sessions between users.
Regarding claim 9, claim 9 comprises the same and/or similar subject matter as claim 2 and is considered an obvious variation; therefore it is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 11, claim 11 comprises the same and/or similar subject matter as claim 4 and is considered an obvious variation; therefore it is rejected based on the same rationale.
Regarding claim 16, claim 16 comprises the same and/or similar subject matter as claim 2 and is considered an obvious variation; therefore it is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 17, claim 17 comprises the same and/or similar subject matter as claim 4 and is considered an obvious variation; therefore it is rejected based on the same rationale.
Claims 3 and 10 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson in view of Powell and in further view of Howard (US 2020/0294045)
Regarding claim 3, Johnson in view of Powell disclose the method of claim 2, Johnson does not expressly disclose wherein each event of the one or more events comprises:
a uniform resource locator (URL) to the user-to-user platform from which the request corresponding to the event is received.
However in analogous art Howard discloses:
a uniform resource locator (URL) to the user-to-user platform from which the request corresponding to the event is received (Howard;
[0136] One or more receivers may interact with temporary resource provider interface(s). A receiver may initiate generation of a commitment response message by, for example, clicking on a button or URL displayed in the temporary resource provider interface. The commitment response message(s) may be generated on a receiver device and transmitted to the interaction management computer.)
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Howard’s URL-button scheme. The motivation being the combined solution provides for implementing a known technique resulting in increased efficiencies of establishing communication sessions between various entities.
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Powell’s URL-button scheme. The motivation being the combined solution provides for implementing a known technique resulting in increased efficiencies of establishing communication sessions between users.
Regarding claim 10, claim 10 comprises the same and/or similar subject matter as claim 3 and is considered an obvious variation; therefore it is rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 5,12, and 18 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson in view of Powell and in further view of Franz (US 8,140,371)
Regarding claim 5, Johnson in view of Powell disclose The method of claim 2, wherein automatically assigning the one or more requests to the target servicing user comprises:
obtaining a specification associated with each of the plurality of requests (Johnson;
see e.g. [0050] “... servicing user type, qualification data and/or a service rate identifier ...”);
Johnson does not expressly disclose:
filtering the plurality of requests to identify a subset of requests based on one or more attributes of the servicing user and the specification associated with each of the plurality of requests;
ranking the subset of requests; and
selecting at least one request from the subset of requests based on the ranking to assign to the servicing user.
However in another embodiment, Johnson does teach ranking servicing users and where the ranking algorithm may be applied to ranking, filtering, and selecting service requests with predictable results. Hence one of ordinary skill in the art may contemplate:
filtering the plurality of requests to identify a subset of requests based on one or more attributes of the servicing user and the specification associated with each of the plurality of requests (Johnson; see e.g. [0047]);
ranking the subset of requests (Johnson; see e.g. [0047]); and
selecting at least one request from the subset of requests based on the ranking to assign to the servicing user (Johnson; see e.g. [0047]; Fig. 4).
As evidence of the rational above Franz teaches:
ranking service requests (Franz;
see e.g. Column 9, Lines 10 -12 “... filters service request ...”
see e.g. Column 14, Lines 26 - 27 “... service requests can be ranked and selected ...”)
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed inventio to incorporate Franz’s ranking and filtering directly associated with service requests. The motivation being the combined solution expands conventional data processing techniques (e.g. ranking, filtering, etc.) to other elements (e.g. service requests) with predictable results.
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Powell’s URL-button scheme. The motivation being the combined solution provides for implementing a known technique resulting in increased efficiencies of establishing communication sessions between users.
Regarding claim 12, claim 12 comprise the same and/or similar subject matter as claim 5 and is considered an obvious variation; therefore it is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 18, claim 18 comprise the same and/or similar subject matter as claim 5 and is considered an obvious variation; therefore it is rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 6, 13, and 19 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson in view of Powell and in further view of Griffin US 2004/0068568
Regarding claim 6, Johnson in view of Powell disclose the method of claim 2, wherein automatically assigning the one or more requests to the target servicing user comprises:
obtaining a specification associated with each of the plurality of requests (Johnson
see e.g. [0050] “.... service request specifies a servicing user type, qualification data and/or a service rate identifier ...”
see e.g. TABLE I ([0037));
determining, based on the specification associated with each request, whether the request corresponds to a synchronous communication session or an asynchronous communication session (Johnson;
see e.g. TABLE I ([0037]) illustrating communication modality comprising asynchronous communication”
see e.g. [0013] “... asynchronous communication ...”);
if the request corresponds to a synchronous communication session, assigning the request to the servicing user by assigning a time period of the servicing user's schedule to the request (Johnson
see e.g. [0029” ... granular scheduling ... periods of availability ...”);
Johnson in view of Powell does not expressly disclose:
if the request corresponds to an asynchronous communication session, assigning the request to the servicing user by adding the request to a pipeline of requests associated with the servicing user.
However in analogous art Griffin discloses:
Pipeline of service request (Griffin;
See e.g. [0047] “... order can be submitted by a pipeline component to event queue 175, thus enabling asynchronous communication ...”
See e.g. [0050] “... Pipeline component ... workflow ... business process, enabling the orchestration of the execution of the business logic ... “)
Therefore it would have prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Griffin’s pipeline. The motivation being the combined solution provides for increased efficiencies in managing data for asynchronous communications.
Johnson in view of Powell and in further view of Griffin discloses:
if the request corresponds to an asynchronous communication session, assigning the request to the servicing user by adding the request to a pipeline of requests associated with the servicing user (The combined solution provides for one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate pipelining of request based on the category of asynchronous communications).
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Powell’s URL-button scheme. The motivation being the combined solution provides for implementing a known technique resulting in increased efficiencies of establishing communication sessions between users.
Regarding claim 13, claim 13 comprise the same and/or similar subject matter as claim 6 and is considered an obvious variation; therefore it is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 19, claim 19 comprise the same and/or similar subject matter as claim 6 and is considered an obvious variation; therefore it is rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 7, 14,and 20 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson in view of Powell and in further view of Ahrens (US 2002/0161458)
Regarding claim 7. Johnson in view of Powell disclose the method of claim 2, Johnson does not expressly disclose wherein displaying, on the second interface, one or more events respectively corresponding to the one or more assigned requests comprises:
sorting the one or more events in the second interface; and
displaying a status indicator for each of the one or more events.
However in analogous art Ahrens discloses:
sorting the one or more events in the second interface (Ahrens;
see e.g. [0025] “... sorts ... service action event entries ...”
see e.g. [0026]) ; and
displaying a status indicator for each of the one or more events (Ahrens;
see e.g. [0031] “... status flag ... service action event ...”)
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective fling date of the claimed invention to incorporate Ahrens sorting and status checking routines. The motivation being the combined solution provides for increased efficiencies in processing data.
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Powell’s URL-button scheme. The motivation being the combined solution provides for implementing a known technique resulting in increased efficiencies of establishing communication sessions between users.
Regarding claim 14, claim 14 comprise the same and/or similar subject matter as claim 7 and is considered an obvious variation; therefore it is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 20, claim 20 comprise the same and/or similar subject matter as claim 7 and is considered an obvious variation; therefore it is rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 8, 15, and 21 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson in view of Powell and in further view of Hiatt (US 2021/0027216)
Regarding claim 8. Johnson in view of Powell disclose the method of claim 2, further comprising:
determining a completion event for at least one of the one or more events (Johnson; see e.g. [003] “... service start event, service end event, a cancel event ...”);
Johnson does not expressly disclose:
removing the at least one event from the second interface.
However in analogous art Hiatt discloses:
removing the at least one event from the second interface (Hiatt;
see e.g. [0103]j “... interface ... add, remove, edit, and/or otherwise manage an antry in the service events list”
see e.g., Claim 1 “... interface ... a removal, or an edit of an entry in a service even ...”)
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Hiatt’s conventional event processing scheme. The motivation being the combined solution provides for implanting a known technique resulting in increased efficiencies of event management.
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Powell’s URL-button scheme. The motivation being the combined solution provides for implementing a known technique resulting in increased efficiencies of establishing communication sessions between users.
Regarding claim 15, claim 15 comprise the same and/or similar subject matter as claim 8 and is considered an obvious variation; therefore it is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 21, claim 21 comprise the same and/or similar subject matter as claim 8 and is considered an obvious variation; therefore it is rejected under the same rationale.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to TODD L. BARKER whose telephone number is (571) 270 0257. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday, 7:30am to 5:00pm.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner's supervisor Vivek Srivastava can be reached on (571) 272 7304.
/TODD L BARKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2449