Few minutes please
DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Domestic
Applicant’s claim for domestic priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C.120, 121, or 365(c) or 365 (a) of any PCT Application international application is
acknowledged, which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement submitted on 11/8/2024 has been considered by the Examiner and made of record in the application file.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 8, 9, 16, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a2) as being anticipated by Fritz, et al (US PG Publication 2021/0074275), hereafter Fritz.
Regarding claim 1, Fritz teaches
a method implemented by a server, comprising:
performing speech-to-text analysis on a greeting portion of a communication directed to a recipient to identify a name
([0018] The contents of the audio input data can be streamed to a speech processing service 106 (includes server – see [0027]), hereafter speech processing service/server, that can analyze the portions of the audio data upon receipt. Any suitable computer implemented speech-to-text converter can be used to convert the received audio signal(s) into text. Analyzing the audio input data can include determining contact information “Bob” and an instruction or intent to “send a message.” The speech processing service/server 106 can determine information from the user's contacts to identify information for Bob
[0020] If the spoken target is “Bob”, then the contact manager 120 can perform a look up against a contact data store, attempt to identify a recipient corresponding to the target “Bob. If, on the other hand, there are multiple potential Bob matches in the user contacts list, then additional information may be used to attempt to identify the appropriate recipient
[0027] The speech processing service 106 may include any number of server computing devices
(The speech processing service/server uses speech-to text conversion to determine the message is directed to Bob when there is an intent to send the message, where attempt made to send message to Bob and the appropriate or actual recipient (forwardee) is identified, indicating recipient Bob not the forwardee));
determining that the identified name does not correspond to the recipient
([0020] If the spoken target is “Bob”, then the contact manager 120 can perform a look up against a contact data store, for example, to attempt to identify with at least a minimum level of certainty or confidence a recipient corresponding to the target “Bob”. If only a single contact matches “Bob” in the contact list for the user, then that recipient might be identified with 100% confidence. If, on the other hand, there are multiple potential Bob matches in the user contacts list, then additional information may be used to attempt to identify the appropriate recipient
(Based on the attempt made to identify recipient, but without 100% confidence that recipient corresponds to the target “Bob”, the identified appropriate recipient and not the initial spoken target Bob becomes the receiver of the message and the forwardee));
identifying a forwardee based on determining that the identified name does not correspond to the recipient
([0020] If, on the other hand, there are multiple potential Bob matches in the user contacts list, then additional information may be used to attempt to identify the appropriate recipient
[0021] Once the appropriate contact information is determined, the message manager 118 can send a message to at least one address, destination, or device associated with the recipient
(When the attempt is made to identify the recipient without 100% confidence that the recipient corresponds to the target “Bob”, the appropriate contact information for the appropriate recipient (forwardee) is identified));
and
forwarding the communication to a message box of the forwardee
([0018] The contact can include any appropriate information, such as may include contact name, email address
[0021] Once the appropriate contact information is determined, the message manager 118 can send a message to at least one address, destination, or device associated with the recipient).
Regarding claim 8, Fritz teaches the method of claim 1,
wherein the greeting portion is within a number of words of the communication
([0018] In response to the user speaking the phrase “Wakeword, send a message to Bob”. The speech processing service/server 106 can convert the audio input data into a series of identifiable words, and then to analyze those words using a context interpreter or other such system or service to interpret the meaning of the request from the user)
Regarding claim 9, Fritz teaches
a server, comprising
([0027] The speech processing service 106 may include any number of server computing devices, hereafter speech processing service/server):
a memory
([0023] The speech processing service/server 106 can be implemented using various hardware and software components
[0070] The environment can include a variety of data stores and other memory and storage media as discussed above); and
a processor, the processor configured to execute instructions stored in the memory to
([0023] The speech processing service/server 106 can be implemented using various hardware and software components
[0027] The speech processing service/server 106 may include an intent processor 112):
perform speech-to-text analysis on a greeting portion of a communication directed to a recipient to identify a name
([0018] The contents of the audio input data can be streamed to a speech processing service/server, that can analyze the portions of the audio data upon receipt. Any suitable computer implemented speech-to-text converter can be used to convert the received audio signal(s) into text. Analyzing the audio input data can include determining contact information “Bob” and an instruction or intent to “send a message.” The speech processing service/server 106 can determine information from the user's contacts to identify information for Bob
[0020] If the spoken target is “Bob”, then the contact manager 120 can perform a look up against a contact data store, attempt to identify a recipient corresponding to the target “Bob. If, on the other hand, there are multiple potential Bob matches in the user contacts list, then additional information may be used to attempt to identify the appropriate recipient
(The speech processing service/server uses speech-to text conversion to determine the message is directed to Bob when there is an intent to send the message, where attempt made to send message to Bob and the appropriate or actual recipient (forwardee) is identified, indicating recipient Bob not the forwardee));
determine that the identified name does not correspond to the recipient
([0020] If the spoken target is “Bob”, then the contact manager 120 can perform a look up against a contact data store, for example, to attempt to identify with at least a minimum level of certainty or confidence a recipient corresponding to the target “Bob”. If only a single contact matches “Bob” in the contact list for the user, then that recipient might be identified with 100% confidence. If, on the other hand, there are multiple potential Bob matches in the user contacts list, then additional information may be used to attempt to identify the appropriate recipient
(Based on the attempt made to identify recipient, but without 100% confidence that recipient corresponds to the target “Bob”, the identified appropriate recipient and not the initial spoken target Bob becomes the receiver of the message and the forwardee));
identify a forwardee based on determining that the identified name does not correspond to the recipient
([0020] If, on the other hand, there are multiple potential Bob matches in the user contacts list, then additional information may be used to attempt to identify the appropriate recipient
[0021] Once the appropriate contact information is determined, the message manager 118 can send a message to at least one address, destination, or device associated with the recipient
(When the attempt is made to identify the recipient without 100% confidence that the recipient corresponds to the target “Bob”, the appropriate contact information for the appropriate recipient (forwardee) is identified)); and
forward the communication to a message box of the forwardee
([0018] The contact can include any appropriate information, such as may include contact name, email address
[0021] Once the appropriate contact information is determined, the message manager 118 can send a message to at least one address, destination, or device associated with the recipient).
Regarding claim 16, Fritz teaches
a non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions operable to cause a processor of a server to perform operations comprising
([0027] The speech processing service 106 may include any number of server computing devices, hereafter speech processing service/server, and may include an intent processor 112
[0070] The environment can include a variety of data stores and other memory and storage media as discussed above. These can reside in a variety of locations, such as on a non-transitory storage medium local to (and/or resident in) one or more of the computers):
performing speech-to-text analysis on a greeting portion of a communication directed to a recipient to identify a name
([0018] The contents of the audio input data can be streamed to a speech processing service/server, that can analyze the portions of the audio data upon receipt. Any suitable computer implemented speech-to-text converter can be used to convert the received audio signal(s) into text. Analyzing the audio input data can include determining contact information “Bob” and an instruction or intent to “send a message.” The speech processing service/server 106 can determine information from the user's contacts to identify information for Bob
[0020] If the spoken target is “Bob”, then the contact manager 120 can perform a look up against a contact data store, attempt to identify a recipient corresponding to the target “Bob. If, on the other hand, there are multiple potential Bob matches in the user contacts list, then additional information may be used to attempt to identify the appropriate recipient
(The speech processing service/server uses speech-to text conversion to determine the message is directed to Bob when there is an intent to send the message, where attempt made to send message to Bob and the appropriate or actual recipient (forwardee) is identified, indicating recipient Bob not the forwardee));
determining that the identified name does not correspond to the recipient
([0020] If the spoken target is “Bob”, then the contact manager 120 can perform a look up against a contact data store, for example, to attempt to identify with at least a minimum level of certainty or confidence a recipient corresponding to the target “Bob”. If only a single contact matches “Bob” in the contact list for the user, then that recipient might be identified with 100% confidence. If, on the other hand, there are multiple potential Bob matches in the user contacts list, then additional information may be used to attempt to identify the appropriate recipient
(Based on the attempt made to identify recipient, but without 100% confidence that recipient corresponds to the target “Bob”, the identified appropriate recipient and not the initial spoken target Bob becomes the receiver of the message and the forwardee));
identifying a forwardee based on determining that the identified name does not correspond to the recipient
([0020] If, on the other hand, there are multiple potential Bob matches in the user contacts list, then additional information may be used to attempt to identify the appropriate recipient
[0021] Once the appropriate contact information is determined, the message manager 118 can send a message to at least one address, destination, or device associated with the recipient
(When the attempt is made to identify the recipient without 100% confidence that the recipient corresponds to the target “Bob”, the appropriate contact information for the appropriate recipient (forwardee) is identified)); and
forwarding the communication to a message box of the forwardee
([0018] The contact can include any appropriate information, such as may include contact name, email address
[0021] Once the appropriate contact information is determined, the message manager 118 can send a message to at least one address, destination, or device associated with the recipient).
Regarding claim 17, Fritz teaches the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 16,
wherein the name is a full name, a partial name, a nickname, or a title
([0018] Analyzing the audio input data can include determining contact information “Bob” and an instruction or intent to “send a message”).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 2, 3, 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fritz, in view of Jakobsson, et al (US PG Publication 2022/0078197), hereafter Jakobsson.
Regarding claim 2, Fritz teaches method of claim 1.
Fritz does not teach
further comprising:
associating the communication with a category.
In the same field of endeavor, Abali teaches
further comprising:
associating the communication with a category
([0205] Examples of the classification of the sender include a college, a business partner, a friend/acquaintance, or unknown
(A message for a recipient is associated with one of a classification category of colleague, company, friend)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of Fritz, which includes determining a recipient, to include Jakobsson’s teaching of determining a recipient, for the benefit of filtering and analyzing any harmful or undesired content to detect, prevent, or minimize such messages from reaching a message recipient served by the recipient message server (see [0041]).
Regarding claim 3, Fritz, in view of Jakobsson, teaches the method of claim 2.
Jakobsson further teaches
wherein the category is mis-directed, indicating the communication was intended for the forwardee but placed in a message box of the recipient instead
([0202] FIG. 13A is a flowchart illustrating an embodiment of a process for detecting misrecognition of a sender of a message by a recipient of the message
[0205] At 1304, the sender of the message is automatically classified. Examples of the classification of the sender include a college, a business partner, a friend/acquaintance, or unknown
[0208] At 1306, before the message is fully provided to the recipient, a classification of the sender of the message is requested from the user in order to verify the recipient's believed classification of the sender as compared to the automatically determined classification
(Classification category of colleague, company, friend, stranger associated with misrecognition, indicated by request received by recipient to verify classification)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of Fritz, in view of Jakobsson, which includes determining a recipient, to include Jakobsson’s teaching of determining a recipient, for the benefit of filtering and analyzing any harmful or undesired content to detect, prevent, or minimize such messages from reaching a message recipient served by the recipient message server (see [0041]).
Regarding claim 12, Fritz teaches the server of claim 9.
Fritz does not teach
wherein the processor is further configured to execute instructions stored in the memory to:
associate a category with the communication, wherein the category is selected from a set of categories including a mis-directed category, an un-directed category, a specifically directed category, a mis-guided category.
In the same field of endeavor, Jakobsson teaches
wherein the processor is further configured to execute instructions stored in the memory to:
associate a category with the communication, wherein the category is selected from a set of categories including a mis-directed category, an un-directed category, a specifically directed category, a mis-guided category
([0202] FIG. 13A is a flowchart illustrating an embodiment of a process for detecting misrecognition of a sender of a message by a recipient of the message
[0205] Examples of the classification of the sender include a college, a business partner, a friend/acquaintance, or unknown
[0208] At 1306, before the message is fully provided to the recipient, a classification of the sender of the message is requested from the user in order to verify the recipient's believed classification of the sender as compared to the automatically determined classification
(Classification category of colleague, company, friend, stranger associated with misrecognition, indicated by request received by recipient to verify classification)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of Fritz, which includes determining a recipient, to include Jakobsson’s teaching of determining a recipient, for the benefit of filtering and analyzing any harmful or undesired content to detect, prevent, or minimize such messages from reaching a message recipient served by the recipient message server (see [0041]).
Claims 4, 5, 13, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fritz, in view of Daniell (US PG Publication 2004/0051736).
Regarding claim 4, Fritz teaches the method of claim 1.
Fritz does not teach
further comprising:
generating, at a device of the recipient, a user interface that includes an indication of the forwardee.
In the same field of endeavor, Daniell teaches
further comprising:
generating, at a device of the recipient, a user interface that includes an indication of the forwardee
([0025] FIGS. 1B and 1C are diagrams showing a user interface 102 of a message-forwarding user, such as may be provided by an email application 185 upon receiving a user indication to forward an email message
[0026] As shown in FIG. 1B, the user interface 102 comprises a recipient email address input box 116 to which the user may enter a forwardee recipient's email address).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of Fritz, which includes determining a recipient, to include Daniell’s teaching of determining a recipient, for the benefit of providing systems and methods for forwarding information in messages (see [0009]).
Regarding claim 5, Fritz, in view of Daniell, teaches the method of claim 4.
Daniell further teaches
wherein the user interface displays a portion of the communication used to identify the forwardee
([0026] The user interface 102 further comprises an email address retrieval selection box 118 that, upon selection by the user, displays a list of previously-stored email addresses, such as from an address book or other contact list, so that the user may select one of the displayed email addresses as the forwardee recipient's email address
(Message includes selection box 118 used to identify forwardee from list of addresses)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of Fritz, in view of Daniell, which includes determining a recipient, to include Daniell’s teaching of determining a recipient, for the benefit of providing systems and methods for forwarding information in messages (see [0009]).
Regarding claim 13, Fritz teaches the server of claim 9.
Fritz does not teach
wherein the processor is further configured to execute instructions stored in the memory to:
display, at a device of the recipient, a user interface associated with a message box of the recipient, wherein the user interface includes an indication of the forwardee.
In the same field of endeavor, Daniell teaches
wherein the processor is further configured to execute instructions stored in the memory to:
display, at a device of the recipient, a user interface associated with a message box of the recipient, wherein the user interface includes an indication of the forwardee
([0025] FIGS. 1B and 1C are diagrams showing a user interface 102 of a message-forwarding user, such as may be provided by an email application 185 upon receiving a user indication to forward an email message
[0026] As shown in FIG. 1B, the user interface 102 comprises a recipient email address input box 116 to which the user may enter a forwardee recipient's email address).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of Fritz, which includes determining a recipient, to include Daniell’s teaching of determining a recipient, for the benefit of providing systems and methods for forwarding information in messages (see [0009]).
Regarding claim 14, Fritz teaches the server of claim 9.
Fritz does not teach
wherein the processor is further configured to execute instructions stored in the memory to:
receive an indication of a potential forwardee; and
identify portions in a transcript of the communication that are related to the potential forwardee.
In the same field of endeavor, Daniell teaches
wherein the processor is further configured to execute instructions stored in the memory to:
receive an indication of a potential forwardee
([0025] FIGS. 1B and 1C are diagrams showing a user interface 102 of a message-forwarding user, such as may be provided by an email application 185 upon receiving a user indication to forward an email message
[0026] As shown in FIG. 1B, the user interface 102 comprises a recipient email address input box 116 to which the user may enter a forwardee recipient's email address); and
identify portions in a transcript of the communication that are related to the potential forwardee.
([0026] The user interface 102 further comprises an email address retrieval selection box 118 that, upon selection by the user, displays a list of previously-stored email addresses, such as from an address book or other contact list, so that the user may select one of the displayed email addresses as the forwardee recipient's email address
(Message includes selection box 118 used to identify forwardee from list of addresses)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of Fritz, which includes determining a recipient, to include Daniell’s teaching of determining a recipient, for the benefit of providing systems and methods for forwarding information in messages (see [0009]).
Claims 6, 7, 10, 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fritz, in view of Abali, et al (US PG Publication 2022/0078197), hereafter Abali.
Regarding claim 6, Fritz teaches the method of claim 1.
Fritz does not teach
further comprising:
identifying a topic associated with the communication; and
determining a plurality of forwardees based on the topic, wherein the forwardee is a member of the plurality of forwardees.
In the same field of endeavor, Abali teaches
further comprising:
identifying a topic associated with the communication
([0154] Social interaction facilitation tool that automates the process of identifying commonalities between two or more users or individuals to facilitate serendipitous social interaction regarding a particular topic of interest. The community may be established based on a description of content of a message, recipient data corresponding to at least two possible recipients of the message within a population of possible recipients
(A topic of interest associated with a message to a recipient is determined)); and
determining a plurality of forwardees based on the topic, wherein the forwardee is a member of the plurality of forwardees
([0154] Social interaction facilitation tool that automates the process of identifying commonalities between two or more users or individuals to facilitate serendipitous social interaction regarding a particular topic of interest. The community may be established based on a description of content of a message, recipient data corresponding to at least two possible recipients of the message within a population of possible recipients, and a selection of a relevant subpopulation based on a ranking of a strength of at least one indirect relationship between said description and said recipient data, wherein said indirect relationship may be defined by said description, said recipient, and at least one additional data source. The community may provide a two-way communication channel between a sender of the message and the relevant subpopulation
(Determining possible recipients, based on topic of interest, the recipients being at least two members of a community)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of Fritz, which includes determining a recipient, to include Abali’s teaching of determining a recipient, for the benefit of facilitating interactions between users of communication devices (see [0001]).
Regarding claim 7, Fritz, in view of Abali, teaches the method of claim 6.
Abali further teaches
further comprising:
ranking the plurality of forwardees based on respective relationship strengths between the recipient and the plurality of forwardees
([0005] The selecting may include, for each of the at least two possible recipients, ranking a strength of an indirect relationship between the description and the recipient data. The indirect relationship may be based on the description, the recipient data and at least one additional data source. The selecting may also include, for each of the at least two possible recipients, adding a possible recipient to the relevant subpopulation based on the ranking of the indirect relationship associated with the possible recipient. The embodiment may further include initiating a two-way communication channel between a sender of the message and the relevant subpopulation
[0154] Selection of a relevant subpopulation based on a ranking of a strength of at least one indirect relationship between said description and said recipient data
(Ranking possible recipients, based on strength of relationship)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of Fritz, in view of Abali, which includes determining a recipient, to include Abali’s teaching of determining a recipient, for the benefit of facilitating interactions between users of communication devices (see [0001]).
Regarding claim 10, Fritz teaches the server of claim 9.
Fritz does not teach
wherein the processor is further configured to execute instructions stored in the memory to:
In the same field of endeavor, Abali teaches
wherein the processor is further configured to execute instructions stored in the memory to:
determine a plurality of forwardees based on a topic determined with respect to the communication, wherein the forwardee is a member of the plurality of forwardees
([0154] Social interaction facilitation tool that automates the process of identifying commonalities between two or more users or individuals to facilitate serendipitous social interaction regarding a particular topic of interest. The community may be established based on a description of content of a message, recipient data corresponding to at least two possible recipients of the message within a population of possible recipients, and a selection of a relevant subpopulation based on a ranking of a strength of at least one indirect relationship between said description and said recipient data, wherein said indirect relationship may be defined by said description, said recipient, and at least one additional data source. The community may provide a two-way communication channel between a sender of the message and the relevant subpopulation
(Determining possible recipients, based on topic of interest, the recipients being at least two members of a community)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of Fritz, which includes determining a recipient, to include Abali’s teaching of determining a recipient, for the benefit of facilitating interactions between users of communication devices (see [0001]).
Regarding claim 11, Fritz, in view of Abali, teaches the server of claim 10.
Abali further teaches
wherein the processor is further configured to execute instructions stored in the memory to:
rank the plurality of forwardees based on respective relationship strengths between the recipient and the plurality of forwardees
([0005] The selecting may include, for each of the at least two possible recipients, ranking a strength of an indirect relationship between the description and the recipient data. The indirect relationship may be based on the description, the recipient data and at least one additional data source. The selecting may also include, for each of the at least two possible recipients, adding a possible recipient to the relevant subpopulation based on the ranking of the indirect relationship associated with the possible recipient. The embodiment may further include initiating a two-way communication channel between a sender of the message and the relevant subpopulation
[0154] Selection of a relevant subpopulation based on a ranking of a strength of at least one indirect relationship between said description and said recipient data
(Ranking possible recipients, based on strength of relationship)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of Fritz, in view of Abali, which includes determining a recipient, to include Jakobsson’s teaching of determining a recipient, for the benefit of filtering and analyzing any harmful or undesired content to detect, prevent, or minimize such messages from reaching a message recipient served by the recipient message server (see [0041]).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fritz, in view of Niehaus, et al (US PG Publication 2020/0388269), hereafter Niehaus.
Regarding claim 15, Fritz teaches the server of claim 9.
Fritz does not teach
wherein to forward the communication to the message box of the forwardee comprises to:
forward the communication to the forwardee in response to determining that the recipient did not review the communication within a predefined period of time.
In the same field of endeavor, Niehaus teaches
wherein to forward the communication to the message box of the forwardee comprises to:
forward the communication to the forwardee in response to determining that the recipient did not review the communication within a predefined period of time
([0085] The action of advancing audio presentation with respect to a conversation thread is one of a plurality of actions that may be supported by the personal assistant device. For example, operation 740 may instead include an instruction to perform a different action, such as replying to, forwarding on to another recipient
[0096] As an example, the estimated time is determined based on a feature of the text content of the plurality of unreviewed electronic communications. The time estimate may be algorithmically computed based on the word or character count (e.g., 0.7 seconds per word)
[0140] A method performed by a computing system comprises: receiving an instruction to initiate audio presentation of electronic communications for a recipient; and responsive to the instruction, outputting an audio presentation including: an initial portion that includes a presentation road map, and a subsequent portion that includes audible output of text content of a plurality of unreviewed electronic communications for the recipient, wherein the presentation road map identifies an estimated time to present the subsequent portion of the audio presentation
(A message is forwarded to another recipient, when estimated time has passed for an unreviewed message)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of Fritz, which includes determining a recipient, to include Niehaus’s teaching of determining a recipient, for the benefit of enabling users to simultaneously perform tasks that are difficult or impossible to perform while using a graphical user interface (see [0016]).
Claims 18, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fritz, in view of Bagby, et al (US PG Publication 2019/0089664), hereafter Bagby.
Regarding claim 18, Fritz teaches the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 16.
Fritz does not teach
wherein performing the speech-to-text analysis on the greeting portion of the communication to identify the name comprises:
searching for users in one or more hierarchies associated with the name.
In the same field of endeavor, Bagby teaches
wherein performing the speech-to-text analysis on the greeting portion of the communication to identify the name comprises:
searching for users in one or more hierarchies associated with the name
([0020] Chat application may determine a user's relative hierarchical ranking within a company. The chat application may analyze the content of a message entered by a user having a lower relative hierarchical ranking for specific action items that may be, for example, specific words, phrases and prompt the user to review the message prior to sending it
[0024] Social media server 106 may be a web server that hosts social networking, chat applications, or other forms of electronic communications; enabling user devices 1 100 and user device 2 101 to send and receive electronic communications
(Server hosts chat application, which, by analyzing message content including words, phrases, determines a user's relative hierarchical ranking within a company and enables communication of messages to recipients)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of Fritz, which includes determining a recipient, to include Bagby’s teaching of determining a recipient, for the benefit of utilizing a quick flow of information between friends or colleagues in a setting where a chain of command is established (see [0017]).
Regarding claim 19, Fritz teaches the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 16.
Fritz does not teach
wherein identifying the forwardee based on determining that the identified name does not correspond to the recipient comprises:
searching for potential forwardees in a reporting structure hierarchy.
In the same field of endeavor, Bagby teaches
wherein identifying the forwardee based on determining that the identified name does not correspond to the recipient comprises:
searching for potential forwardees in a reporting structure hierarchy
([0020] Chat application may determine a user's relative hierarchical ranking within a company. The chat application may analyze the content of a message entered by a user having a lower relative hierarchical ranking and prompt the user to review the message prior to sending it
[0024] Social media server 106 may be a web server that hosts social networking, chat applications, or other forms of electronic communications; enabling user devices 1 100 and user device 2 101 to send and receive electronic communications
[0027] Organizational hierarchy data 105 may contain organizational data files or organizational titles of a business entity, or institution of members to be ranked, which may include the reporting relationships of all company employees. If one user has fewer reporting levels up to the vice president than the other user, the first user will have higher organizational hierarchical ranking
(Server hosts chat application, which enables communication of messages to recipients and determines a user's relative hierarchical ranking within a company and when a user is not user associated with the communication, according to reporting level)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of Fritz, which includes determining a recipient, to include Bagby’s teaching of determining a recipient, for the benefit of utilizing a quick flow of information between friends or colleagues in a setting where a chain of command is established (see [0017]).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fritz, in view of Khoury, et al (US PG Publication 2021/0224858), hereafter Khoury.
Regarding claim 20, Fritz teaches the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 16.
Fritz does not teach
wherein identifying the forwardee based on determining that the identified name does not correspond to the recipient comprises:
searching for potential forwardees in a project-based hierarchy.
In the same field of endeavor, Khoury teaches
wherein identifying the forwardee based on determining that the identified name does not correspond to the recipient comprises:
searching for potential forwardees in a project-based hierarchy
([0325] Further, prior to distribution, such messaging may be subjected to a conflict check so as to ensure message consistency, and once successfully completed, the communication can then be posted or otherwise distributed. For instance, the system my include a conflict checker module 44 for performing a conflict check, such as where the conflict checker 44 may be engaged, as described herein, so as to ensure that the same recipients and/or commenters, within the same region, are not receiving the same, e.g., canned, responses at the same level within the same range of time, and the like
[0333] The conflict checks module may be built on intelligence that is performed on at least 2 or 3 or more layers of checks that the system performs before a communication is posted. Controls for configuring these conflict checks can be set at any and all organizational and system levels. In a manner such as this conflict checks can go all the way to the account level (corporate), the group level (regional), and/or project level, e.g., at a single location, which controls can be set at each location. In such a hierarchy, the project level may be overridden by the group level, which may be overridden by the account level, or vice versa, dependent on how the permissions have been structured
(Prior to distribution of message, a conflict check is made to determine recipient that will not receive message, the conflict check being associated with a project level hierarchy)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of Fritz, which includes determining a recipient, to include Bagby’s teaching of determining a recipient, for the benefit of performing messaging nationwide in a scalable manner that helps avoid user error when posting across a large number of locations (see [0333]).
Conclusion
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art Not Applied
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kumar, et al (US PG Publication 2016/0140965), hereafter Kumar, teaches analyzing transcribed calls that meet particular criteria such as a recipient or group of recipients.
Gainsboro, et al (US PG Publication 2007/0071206), hereafter Gainsboro, teaches determining whether a certainty level of speech-to-text conversion of a spoken name is below a pre-determined threshold.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Examiner Frank Donado whose telephone number is (571) 270-5361. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays through Fridays between 8 am and 4 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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 Patent Examiner (SPE) Charles Appiah can be reached at 571-272-7904. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov.
Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/FRANK E DONADO/Examiner, Art Unit 2641
/CHARLES N APPIAH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2641
Prosecution Insights