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 .
Claims 1-20 have been examined.
Response to Argument
Applicant’s arguments in the Remarks, filed on 8/10/26 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of new grounds of rejections.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-9, 11-16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baldwin, U.S. Patent Application Publication 2013/0124189 (hereinafter Baldwin) in view of Lawson et al, U.S. Patent Application Publication 2013/007216 (hereinafter Lawson) and Toshniwal et al, U.S. Patent Application Publication 2012/0303831 (hereinafter Toshniwal).
.
As per claim 1, Baldwin teaches the invention substantially as claim comprising:
accessing, by one or more processors, a request to perform an analysis at least a portion of media communicated in a communication session, the request corresponding to an account at a multitenant platform ([24][25][29][37], e.g., accessing command/instruction/opt-in to monitor and perform analysis of on-going text/chat conversation, the opt-in corresponding to user setting/profile at a multitenant/ users/accounts platform);
causing, by the one or more processors, an analysis service to perform the requested analysis of at least the portion of the media communicated in the communication session, the analysis service generating a result based on the analysis requested by the request ([32]-[34], e.g., causing analysis of continuous text/chat conversation; [32]-[35][38][41], the analysis generating solution or additional information);
initiating, by the one or more processors, an event based on the result generated by the analysis service ([35][38]-[42], e.g., initiating an event based on the solution/additional information by the analysis).
Although Baldwin teaches account at a multitenant platform ([24][25][29][37]), and analysis service that corresponds to the caused analysis of at least the portion of the media ([24][25][29][37]), however, Baldwin is silent in regard to sub-account and recording usage of analysis service by the sub-account. Lawson teaches sub-account of an account at a multitenant platform and recording usage of the analysis service/service by the sub-account ([24][30][40][41], e.g., recording of analytic services by sub-account).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Lawson’s teaching with Baldwin’s system in order to allow segregation of user data using sub-accounts in Baldwin’s system [30].
Although Baldwin teaches an API call provided from an user equipment distinct from the multitenant platform and corresponding to the account ([24][25][29][37]), however, Baldwin and Lawson are silent in regards to user equipment as an application server. Toshniwal teaches user equipment/user device as application server [23].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Toshniwal’s teaching with Baldwin’s and Lawson’s system in order to include other types of UE to utilize Baldwin’s and Lawson’s system, thus increasing the field of use of Baldwin’s and Lawson’s system.
As per claim 2, Baldwin, Lawson and Toshniwal teach the invention substantially as claimed in claim 1 above. Baldwin further teach comprising: receiving a command to invoke the analysis service in relation to the communication session ([44][24][25][29][37]); and wherein: the causing of the analysis service to perform the analysis of at least the portion of the media is in response to the received command to invoke the analysis service in relation to the communication session ([44][24][25][29][37]).
As per claim 4, Baldwin, Lawson and Toshniwal teach the invention substantially as claimed in claim 1 above. Baldwin further teach wherein: the initiating of the event based on the result generated by the analysis service includes communicating the result generated by the analysis service to a device that corresponds to the communication session ([38][41][42]).
As per claim 5, Baldwin, Lawson and Toshniwal teach the invention substantially as claimed in claim 1 above. Baldwin and Lawson further teach wherein: the initiating of the event based on the result generated by the analysis service includes updating a record that corresponds to the sub-account of the account (Baldwin, [41][57]; Lawson, [41]).
As per claim 6, Baldwin, Lawson and Toshniwal teach the invention substantially as claimed in claim 1 above. Baldwin further teach wherein: the causing of the analysis service to perform the analysis of at least the portion of the media is in response to a command received from a device ([24][25][29][37]); and the initiating of the event based on the result generated by the analysis service includes communicating the result generated by the analysis service to the device from which the command is received ([24][25][29][35][37][38][41][42]).
As per claim 7, Baldwin, Lawson and Toshniwal teach the invention substantially as claimed in claim 1 above. Baldwin further teach wherein: the communication session includes an asynchronous sequence of messages ([25][29][32]); and
the analysis service includes at least one of a sentiment detection service, an emotion detection service, or an intent detection service ([33][34][35][38][57]).
As per claims 8 and 15, they are rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 1 above. See figure 11 of Baldwin for A system comprising: one or more processors; and a machine-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the system to perform operations of claim 1.
As per claims 9 and 16, they are rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 2 above.
As per claims 11 and 18, they are rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 4 above.
As per claims 12 and 19, they are rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 5 above.
As per claims 13 and 20, they are rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 6 above.
As per claim 14, it is rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 7 above.
Claim 3, 10 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baldwin, Lawson and Toshniwal in view of Connolly et al, U.S. Patent Application Publication 2015/0350435 (hereinafter Connolly).
As per claim 3, Baldwin, Lawson and Toshniwal teach the invention substantially as claimed in claim 1 above. Although Baldwin teaches wherein: the causing of the analysis service to perform the analysis of at least the portion of the media is in response to a command to invoke the analysis service in relation to the communication session ([44][24][25][29][37]), however, Baldwin, Lawson and Toshniwal are silent in regards to the command being received from an application server that corresponds to the communication session. Connolly teaches the causing of the analysis service to perform the analysis of at least the portion of the media is in response to a command to invoke the analysis service in relation to the communication session, the command being received from an application server that corresponds to the communication session ([111][135][141][142][63][75]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Connolly’s teaching with Baldwin’s, Lawson’s and Toshniwal’s system in order to include other types of UE to utilize Baldwin’s, Lawson’s and Toshniwal’s system, thus increasing the field of use of Baldwin’s, Lawson’s and Toshniwal’s system.
As per claims 10 and 17, they are rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 3 above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set
forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should
be directed to Philip Lee whose telephone number is (571)272-3967. The examiner can normally be
reached on 6a-3p M-F.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor,
Glenton Burgess can be reached on 571-272-3949. 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.
/PHILIP C LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2454
