DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
• The following is an office action in response to the communication filed 10/31/2024.
• Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Priority
The examiner acknowledges that the instant application is a continuation of US Patent No. 12165184 B2, filed 11/08/2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
Information Disclosure Statement received 02/05/2025 has been reviewed and considered.
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 .
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 §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) 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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-3, 5, 7, 9-11, 13, 15, and 17-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 11, and 15-18 of U.S. Patent No. 12165184 B2 (referred to as “‘184”).
‘184 teaches:
Claim 1
‘184
A multi-channel message exchange system comprising: one or more computer processors; and one or more computer-readable mediums storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more computer processors, cause the multi-channel message exchange system to perform operations comprising:
[Claim 11] – A message exchange system comprising: one or more computer processors; and one or more computer-readable mediums storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more computer processors, cause the system to perform operations comprising: …the plurality of service providers
receiving a request to transmit a message to a recipient device, the request associated with an account
[Claim 11] – receiving a request to transmit a message to a recipient device, the request associated with the account
accessing, from a database, criteria for the account, the criteria including a quality weight
[Claim 11] – receiving criteria for an account, the criteria including…a quality weight…accessing the criteria from the criteria storage
determining, based on the quality weight, a ranking value for each of a plurality of service providers that deliver messages
[Claim 11] – determining, for each of the plurality of service providers, a ranking value based on…the quality weight
based on the ranking values, selecting a service provider of the plurality of service providers
[Claim 11] – based on the ranking value for each of the plurality of service providers, selecting a highest-ranked service provider to deliver the message to the recipient device
transmitting the message to the selected service provider
[Claim 11] – causing the message to be transmitted to the recipient device via the selected service provider
Claim 2
‘184 [Claim 15]
wherein the criteria for the account identifies a maximum value
wherein the criteria identify a first maximum value
Claim 3
‘184
determining that a cost value of the selected service provider does not exceed the maximum value identified by the criteria
[Claim 11] – a maximum price
[Claim 16] – determining that the value of a data structure of the plurality of data structures provided by the selected service provider does not exceed the first maximum value
Claim 5
‘184 [Claim 17]
receiving, via an application programming interface, a modification of the criteria for the account
receiving, via an API, a modification of the criteria associated with the account
Claim 7
‘184 [Claim 11]
wherein the determining of the ranking value for each of the plurality of service providers is further based on a quality score for each of the plurality of service providers
accessing a plurality of data structures stored in a bid storage, the plurality of data structures provided by a plurality of service providers remote from the message exchange system, each data structure indicating a value associated with a channel…determining, for each of the plurality of service providers, a ranking value based on the real-time updated plurality of data structures
In regards to claim 9, claim 9 is directed to a medium. Claim 9 recites limitations that are substantially parallel in nature to those addressed above for claim 1 which is directed towards a system. ‘184 teaches the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. ‘184 further teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by one or more computer processors of a multi-channel message exchange system, cause the multi-channel message exchange system to perform operations (‘184: [Claim 18]). Claim 9 is therefore rejected for the reasons set forth above in claim 1 and in this paragraph.
In regards to claims 10-11, 13, and 15, all the limitations in medium claims 10-11, 13, and 15 are closely parallel to the limitations of system claims 2-3, 5, and 7 analyzed above and rejected on the same bases.
In regards to claim 17, claim 17 is directed to a medium. Claim 17 recites limitations that are substantially parallel in nature to those addressed above for claim 1 which is directed towards a system. ‘184 teaches the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. ‘184 further teaches a method (‘184: [Claim 1]). Claim 17 is therefore rejected for the reasons set forth above in claim 1 and in this paragraph.
In regards to claims 18-19, all the limitations in method claims 18-19 are closely parallel to the limitations of system claims 2-3 analyzed above and rejected on the same bases.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. The claims recite an abstract idea. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
First, it is determined whether the claims are directed to a statutory category of invention. See MPEP 2106.03(II). In the instant case, claims 1-8 are directed to a machine, claims 9-16 are directed to a manufacture, and claims 17-20 are directed to a process. Therefore, claims 1-20 are directed to statutory subject matter under Step 1 of the Alice/Mayo test (Step 1: YES).
The claims are then analyzed to determine if the claims are directed to a judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.04. In determining whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception, the claims are analyzed to evaluate whether the claims recite a judicial exception (Prong 1 of Step 2A), as well as analyzed to evaluate whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the judicial exception (Prong 2 of Step 2A). See MPEP 2106.04.
Taking claim 1 as representative, claim 1 recites at least the following limitations that are believed to recite an abstract idea:
receiving a request to send a message to a recipient device, the request associated with an account;
accessing criteria for the account, the criteria including a quality weight;
determining, based on the quality weight, a ranking value for each of a plurality of service providers that deliver messages;
based on the ranking values, selecting a service provider of the plurality of service providers; and
sending the message to the selected service provider.
The above limitations recite the concept of selecting a service provider. These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas, enumerated in the MPEP, in that they recite commercial or legal interactions such as advertising, marketing, or sales activities or behaviors. Specifically, the selection of a service provider represents marketing and sales behaviors because it pertains to services offered. This is illustrated in Specification [0021], which discusses paying a cost for the service. Further, these limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas, enumerated in the MPEP, in that they recite concepts performed in the human mind, including observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. Specifically, the analysis to determine a service provider are observations, evaluations, and judgements. Claims 9 and 17 recite the same abstract ideas as claim 1 and accordingly fall within the same grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, under Prong One of Step 2A of the MPEP, claims 1, 9, and 17 recite an abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Under Prong Two of Step 2A of the MPEP, claims 1, 9, and 17 recite additional elements, such as a multi-channel message exchange system comprising: one or more computer processors; and one or more computer-readable mediums storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more computer processors, cause the multi-channel message exchange system to perform operations; transmitting data; a database; and a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by one or more computer processors of a multi-channel message exchange system, cause the multi-channel message exchange system to perform operations. These additional elements are described at a high level in Applicant’s specification without any meaningful detail about their structure or configuration. As such, these computer-related limitations are not found to be sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Although these additional computer-related elements are recited, claims 1, 9, and 17 merely invoke such additional elements as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer is not indicative of integration into a practical application. Similar to the limitations of Alice, claims 1, 9, and 17 merely recite a commonplace business method (i.e., selecting a service provider) being applied on a general purpose computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Furthermore, claims 1, 9, and 17 generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The courts have identified various examples of limitations as merely indicating a field of use/technological environment in which to apply the abstract idea, such as specifying that the abstract idea of monitoring audit log data relates to transactions or activities that are executed in a computer environment, because this requirement merely limits the claims to the computer field, i.e., to execution on a generic computer (see FairWarning v. Iatric Sys.). Likewise, claims 1, 9, and 17 specifying that the abstract idea of selecting a service provider is executed in a computer environment merely indicates a field of use in which to apply the abstract idea because this requirement merely limits the claims to the computer field, i.e., to execution on a generic computer. As such, under Prong Two of Step 2A of the MPEP, when considered both individually and as a whole, the limitations of claims 1, 9, and 17 are not indicative of integration into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO).
Since claims 1, 9, and 17 recite an abstract idea and fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, claims 1, 9, and 17 are “directed to” an abstract idea (Step 2A: YES).
Next, under Step 2B, the claims are analyzed to determine if there are additional claim limitations that individually, or as an ordered combination, ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05. The instant claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for at least the following reasons.
Returning to independent claims 1, 9, and 17, these claims recite additional elements, such as a multi-channel message exchange system comprising: one or more computer processors; and one or more computer-readable mediums storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more computer processors, cause the multi-channel message exchange system to perform operations; transmitting data; a database; and a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by one or more computer processors of a multi-channel message exchange system, cause the multi-channel message exchange system to perform operations. As discussed above with respect to Prong Two of Step 2A, although additional computer-related elements are recited, the claims merely invoke such additional elements as a tool to perform the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Moreover, the limitations of claims 1, 9, and 17 are manual processes, e.g., receiving information, sending information, etc. The courts have indicated that mere automation of manual processes is not sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality (see MPEP 2106.05(a)(I)). Furthermore, as discussed above with respect to Prong Two of Step 2A, claims 1, 9, and 17 merely recite the additional elements in order to further define the field of use of the abstract idea, therein attempting to generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such as the Internet or computing networks (see Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC. (Fed. Cir. 2014); Bilski v. Kappos (2010); MPEP 2106.05(h)). Similar to FairWarning v. Iatric Sys., claims 1, 9, and 17 specifying that the abstract idea of selecting a service provider is executed in a computer environment merely indicates a field of use in which to apply the abstract idea because this requirement merely limits the claim to the computer field, i.e., to execution on a generic computer.
Even when considered as an ordered combination, the additional elements do not add anything that is not already present when they are considered individually. In Alice Corp., the Court considered the additional elements “as an ordered combination,” and determined that “the computer components…‘[a]dd nothing…that is not already present when the steps are considered separately’ and simply recite intermediated settlement as performed by a generic computer.” Id. (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1972). Similarly, viewed as a whole, claims 1, 9, and 17 simply convey the abstract idea itself facilitated by generic computing components. Therefore, under Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, there are no meaningful limitations in claims 1, 9, and 17 that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself (Step 2B: NO).
Dependent claims 2-8, 10-16, and 18-20, when analyzed as a whole, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they do not add “significantly more” to the abstract idea. Dependent claims 2-8, 10-16, and 18-20 further fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas, enumerated in the MPEP, in that they recite commercial or legal interactions such as advertising, marketing, or sales activities or behaviors. Further, these claims, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas, enumerated in the MPEP, in that they recite concepts performed in the human mind, including observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. . Dependent claims 2-4, 7-8, 10-12, 15-16, and 18-20 fail to identify additional elements and as such, are not indicative of integration into a practical application. Dependent claims 5-6 and 13-14 further recite the additional elements of an application programming interface and a maximum latency. Similar to the discussion above under Prong Two of Step 2A, although these additional computer-related elements are recited, claims 2-8, 10-16, and 18-20merely invoke such additional elements as a tool to perform the abstract idea. As such, under Step 2A, dependent claims 2-8, 10-16, and 18-20 are “directed to” an abstract idea and are not integrated into a practical application. Similar to the discussion above with respect to claims 1, 9, and 17, dependent claims 2-8, 10-16, and 18-20, analyzed individually and as an ordered combination, merely further define the commonplace business method being applied on a general purpose computer and, therefore, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2). Further, these limitations generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. Accordingly, under the Alice/Mayo test, claims 1-20 are ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 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.
Claims 1-4, 6-12, and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scott (US 10448226 B1), hereinafter Scott, in view of Shirazi et al. (US 20160286526 A1), hereinafter Shirazi.
In regards to claim 1, Scott discloses a multi-channel message exchange system comprising: one or more computer processors; and one or more computer-readable mediums storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more computer processors, cause the multi-channel message exchange system to perform operations comprising (Scott: Col. 10, Ln. 10-36 and Fig. 10 – “the reverse auction instructions 1090 are executable by the processor 1052 to perform certain operations described herein. In one implementation, the computing device 1010 includes or corresponds to the device 102, and the processor 1052…the one or more storage devices 1040, or both, include tangible computer-readable media”; Col. 1, Ln. 7-10 – “communication networks and more particularly to selection of service providers of networks using a network service exchange system”):
receiving a request to transmit a message to a recipient device, the request associated with an account (Scott: Col. 2, Ln. 40-43 – “a device communicates with a network exchange service system to send a request identifying one or more service parameters”; Col. 4, Ln. 13-19 – “one or more service parameters 114 may indicate…a number or frequency of messages to be transmitted”; Col. 1, Ln. 10-16 – “Devices use networks to communicate data. As an example, certain sensor devices generate data (e.g., measurements) and use networks to communicate the data to a server or other device”);
accessing criteria for the account, the criteria including a quality weight (Scott: Col. 13, Ln. 44-48 – “assigning parametric weighting to the network subscriber inputs, at 704. Assigning the parametric weighting to the network subscriber inputs generates weighted parameters”);
determining, based on the quality weight, a ranking value for each of a plurality of service providers that deliver messages (Scott: Col. 14, Ln. 5-16 – “a weighting scheme is used in which each bid submittal is “scored” for each criterion to generate a ‘global’ score…normalizing data based on the compliant bids, at 714, to generate normalized data. The method 700 further includes calculating minimum distances in a parametric N-dimensional space, at 716 to generate minimum distances. The method 700 further includes ranking the compliant bids, at 718, to generate ranked bids”; see also Col. 4, Ln. 13-19);
based on the ranking values, selecting a service provider of the plurality of service providers (Scott: Col. 13, Ln. 14-16 – “ranking the bids, at 624, and transmitting a next highest ranked bid to the subscriber, at 626”; Col. 3, Ln. 20-24 – “select a service provider 110 from among the plurality of candidate service providers 106 to provide a service to the device 102”); and
transmitting to the selected service provider (Scott: Col. 14, Ln. 57-65 and Fig. 8 – “method 800 further includes performing an over-the-air provisioning process after selecting the service provider to enable the device to communicate using a network associated with the service provider. In some implementations, the network service exchange system 104 performs the over-the-air provisioning process 136 to enable the device 102 to communicate with the service provider 110 using the network 150”; Col. 4, Ln. 14-20 – “one or more service parameters 114 may indicate…a number or frequency of messages to be transmitted”)
Scott further discloses messages to be transmitted with a service provider (Scott: Col. 4, Ln. 14-20), yet Scott does not explicitly disclose accessing, from a database, criteria, and transmitting the message to the selected service provider.
However, Shirazi teaches a similar system of sending a message (Shirazi: [abstract]), including
accessing, from a database, criteria (Shirazi: [0024] and Table 1 – “selects a communication channel for transmitting the message based on one or more properties. The properties are stored in the channel data 130 database for access by the channel manager 114. In some implementations, the channel properties can include one or more of those listed below in TABLE 1…sender Requirements…User Preferences…An indication of whether the recipient favors the channel for communication”); and
transmitting the message to the selected service provider (Shirazi: [0037] – “The channel manager 114 can provide the selected communication channel (e.g., OTT2) and the request 201 to the channel adapter 116 (212). The channel adapter 116 translates the request 201 to a request 215 (to transmit the message) according to a protocol (e.g., an API) for the selected communication channel. For instance, the request 215 can include the message from the request 201 but in a format based the protocol of the OTT2 channel, and a user identifier (of the user) for the OTT2 channel. The request 215 can also include an identifier for the customer 140 such that a future reply message in reference to the request 215 can be directed toward back to the customer 140. The channel manager 114 then forwards the request 215 to servers of the OTT2 channel 162 (216). The servers of the OTT2 channel 162 then forward the message 219 to the client device 150 of the recipient (220)”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have included the database and message transmission of Shirazi in the system of Scott because Scott already discloses storage and a communication session and Shirazi is merely demonstrating how these may occur. Additionally, it would have been obvious to have included accessing, from a database, criteria, and transmitting the message to the selected service provider as taught by Shirazi because databases and transmissions are well-known and the use of it in a message setting would have mitigated the complexity of communicating over different channels that have differing protocols and security requirements (Shirazi: [0003]).
In regards to claim 2, Scott/Shirazi teaches the system of claim 1. Scott does not explicitly disclose wherein the criteria for the account identifies a maximum value.
However, Shirazi teaches a similar system of sending a message (Shirazi: [abstract]), including
wherein the criteria for the account identifies a maximum value (Shirazi: [0026] – “channel manager 114 can also select a communication channel based on the sender's identification (the customer 140) or additional criteria specified by the sender. For instance, the sender may have an upper limit (e.g., $0.05, or $0.00) on a cost to send a message”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed inventions to combine Shirazi with Scott for the reasons identified above with respect to claim 1.
In regards to claim 3, Scott/Shirazi teaches the system of claim 2. Scott does not explicitly disclose wherein the operations further comprise: determining that a cost value of the selected service provider does not exceed the maximum value identified by the criteria.
However, Shirazi teaches a similar system of sending a message (Shirazi: [abstract]), including
wherein the operations further comprise: determining that a cost value of the selected service provider does not exceed the maximum value identified by the criteria (Shirazi: [0027] – “the channel manager 114 selects a communication channel based on evaluation of one or more rules using the rule-based system 118. Each rule in the rule-based system 118 includes one or more required properties for the message, and a channel suitable for the required properties. A required property for the message can be the content type (e.g., text or rich-media), a cost limit specified by the sender, or a delivery success rate specified by the sender, or the value of a property listed in TABLE 1. Other required properties for the message are possible. The required properties can be determined by metadata (e.g., the content type, the sender) of the message”; the examiner notes a channel suitable does not exceed the cost requirement).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed inventions to combine Shirazi with Scott for the reasons identified above with respect to claim 1.
In regards to claim 4, Scott/Shirazi teaches the system of claim 2. Scott further discloses wherein the operations further comprise: determining that a cost value of another service provider with a value identified by the criteria, the other service provider being excluded from a set of service providers gathered from the plurality of service providers for potential selection to deliver the message (Scott: Col. 12, Ln. 62 – Col. 13, Ln. 13 – “the one or more service parameters 114 indicate a price…the network service exchange system 104 evaluates the bid submittals 120 to determine whether each of the bid submittals 120 complies with the one or more service parameters 114…determining, for each bid submission, if the bid submission complies with the service level agreement indicated in the request, at 620. In a particular example, if a bid submission does not comply with the service level agreement indicated by the request, the network service exchange system 104 sends a bid rejection notice, at 618”).
Scott further discloses determining compliance with a price of a user but Scot does not explicitly disclose that a cost value of another service provider exceeds the maximum value.
However, Shirazi teaches a similar system of sending a message (Shirazi: [abstract]), including
that a cost value of another service provider exceeds the maximum value (Shirazi: [0027] – “the channel manager 114 selects a communication channel based on evaluation of one or more rules using the rule-based system 118. Each rule in the rule-based system 118 includes one or more required properties for the message, and a channel suitable for the required properties. A required property for the message can be the content type (e.g., text or rich-media), a cost limit specified by the sender, or a delivery success rate specified by the sender, or the value of a property listed in TABLE 1. Other required properties for the message are possible. The required properties can be determined by metadata (e.g., the content type, the sender) of the message”; [0028-0029] and Table – “By way of illustration, assume that there are four required properties A, B, C, and D…if the required properties for the message are B and D, the rule-based system 118 accesses the above set of rules (stored in the channel selection rules database 134) and selects the channel OTT.sub.1 for transmitting the message. If the required properties for the message are A only, the rule-based system 118 accesses the above set of rules and selects the channel OTT.sub.3 for transmitting the message the examiner notes a channel suitable does not exceed the cost requirement)”; the examiner notes that since a price upper limit can be a requirement, a channel not having a requirement exceeds the upper limit).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed inventions to combine Shirazi with Scott for the reasons identified above with respect to claim 1.
In regards to claim 6, Scott/Shirazi teaches the system of claim 1. Scott further discloses wherein the request identifies a latency for transmitting the message (Scott: Col. 4, Ln. 14-19 – “one or more service parameters 114 may indicate a type of network capability of the device 102 (e.g., a time division multiple access (TDMA) capability or a code division multiple access (CDMA) capability), a target latency parameter”; Col. 13, Ln. 65 – Col. 14, Ln. 5 – “the one or more service parameters 114 indicate one or more threshold…values for one or more criteria, such as a minimum upload speed, as an illustrative example. Thus, in some cases, a bid submittal is non-compliant for failing to satisfy a threshold value of a criterion”).
Yet Scott does not explicitly disclose that a parameter value is a maximum value.
However, Shirazi teaches a similar system of sending a message (Shirazi: [abstract]), including
that a parameter value is a maximum value (Shirazi: [0027] – “the channel manager 114 selects a communication channel based on evaluation of one or more rules using the rule-based system 118. Each rule in the rule-based system 118 includes one or more required properties for the message, and a channel suitable for the required properties. A required property for the message can be the content type (e.g., text or rich-media), a cost limit specified by the sender, or a delivery success rate specified by the sender, or the value of a property listed in TABLE 1. Other required properties for the message are possible. The required properties can be determined by metadata (e.g., the content type, the sender) of the message”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed inventions to combine Shirazi with Scott for the reasons identified above with respect to claim 1.
In regards to claim 7, Scott/Shirazi teaches the system of claim 1. Scott further discloses wherein the determining of the ranking value for each of the plurality of service providers is further based on a quality score for each of the plurality of service providers (Scott: Col. 14, Ln. 5-16 – “a weighting scheme is used in which each bid submittal is “scored” for each criterion to generate a ‘global’ score…normalizing data based on the compliant bids, at 714, to generate normalized data. The method 700 further includes calculating minimum distances in a parametric N-dimensional space, at 716 to generate minimum distances. The method 700 further includes ranking the compliant bids, at 718, to generate ranked bids”; see also Col. 4, Ln. 13-19).
In regards to claim 8, Scott/Shirazi teaches the system of claim 7. Yet Scott does not explicitly disclose wherein the quality score for each service provider is based on feedback data for the service provider that describes the service provider’s actual performance delivering messages that have been allocated to the service provider for delivery.
However, Shirazi teaches a similar system of sending a message (Shirazi: [abstract]), including
wherein the quality score for each service provider is based on feedback data for the service provider that describes the service provider’s actual performance delivering messages that have been allocated to the service provider for delivery (Shirazi: [0024] and Table 1 – “the channel properties can include one or more of those listed below in TABLE 1… Quality of Service A measure of the performance of the channel based on message delivery failure rate, transmission delay, queues, maintenance periods, delivery confirmation, packet loss, available features (e.g., text vs. rich-media content), or OTT restrictions”; [0005] – “One or more rules of the rule-based system can be periodically updated by a machine learning system with input comprising respective past performance data for each property on each of the plurality of third party communication channels. The aspect can further comprise determining that the sending failed and based thereon, selecting a second channel from the plurality of channels; determining a second channel-specific user identifier for the user; and sending the message to the user on the second channel using the second channel-specific user identifier”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed inventions to combine Shirazi with Scott for the reasons identified above with respect to claim 1.
In regards to claim 9, claim 9 is directed to a medium. Claim 9 recites limitations that are substantially parallel in nature to those addressed above for claim 1 which is directed towards a system. Scott/Shirazi teaches the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Scott further discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by one or more computer processors of a multi-channel message exchange system, cause the multi-channel message exchange system to perform operations (Scott: Col. 18, Ln. 25-45). Claim 9 is therefore rejected for the reasons set forth above in claim 1 and in this paragraph.
In regards to claims 10-12 and 14-16, all the limitations in medium claims 10-12 and 14-16 are closely parallel to the limitations of system claims 2-4 and 6-8 analyzed above and rejected on the same bases.
In regards to claim 17, claim 17 is directed to a medium. Claim 17 recites limitations that are substantially parallel in nature to those addressed above for claim 1 which is directed towards a system. Scott/Shirazi teaches the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Scott further discloses a method (Scott: [Abstract]). Claim 17 is therefore rejected for the reasons set forth above in claim 1 and in this paragraph.
In regards to claims 18-20, all the limitations in method claims 18-20 are closely parallel to the limitations of system claims 2-4 analyzed above and rejected on the same bases.
Claims 5 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scott, in view of Shirazi, in view of Orr et al. (US 20210044555 A1), hereinafter Orr.
In regards to claim 5, Scott/Shirazi teaches the system of claim 1. Yet Scott does not explicitly disclose wherein the operations further comprise: receiving, via an application programming interface, a modification of the criteria for the account.
However, Orr teaches a similar message system (Orr: [abstract]), including wherein the operations further comprise: receiving, via an application programming interface, a modification of the criteria for the account (Orr: [0032] – “a customer that intends to use the message publisher management engine 205 to launch a message campaign to distribute messages to various end users may create an account with the message management server 110. The message management server 110 stores the customer's profile, metadata, credential and associate the information with a unique customer identifier, such as publisherID. The customer (an example of a message publisher 120) may create message templates, message series templates, digital pass templates (e.g., digital boarding passes and digital coupons), specify criteria of message distribution and goals of message campaigns…and configure other settings with the message management server 110. The templates and settings are associated with the customer identifier and can be…edited, and deleted based on the message publisher's preferences and actions entered through a message management application and/or API provided by the message management server 110”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have included the updating of Orr in the system of Scott/Shirazi because Scott/Shirazi already discloses criteria and Orr is merely demonstrating how these may be updated. Additionally, it would have been obvious to have included wherein the operations further comprise: receiving, via an application programming interface, a modification of the criteria for the account as taught by Orr because updates are well-known and the use of it in a message setting would have provided effective communication strategy (Orr: [0003]; [0014]).
In regards to claim 13, all the limitations in method claim 13 are closely parallel to the limitations of system claims 5 analyzed above and rejected on the same bases.
Conclusion
NPL Reference U teaches a system of network routing. Routes are sent by service providers. The best match route for a customer is found and selected.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANNA MAE MITROS whose telephone number is (571)272-3969. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 9:30-6.
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, Marissa Thein can be reached at 571-272-6764. 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.
/ANNA MAE MITROS/Examiner, Art Unit 3689