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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
1. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
2. Claims 1, 3-7, 13, 15-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mekonnen et al. (US Patent 9,191,508) in view of Ergezinger et al. (2004/0139204).
As to claim 1, Mekonnen teaches a communication platform (col. 4, lines 13-20 – call center, an automatic call distributor or ACD) comprising: one or more computer-readable mediums that store instructions that, when executed by the one or more computer processors, cause the communication platform to perform operations comprising: creating an application service that provides: generating a service handler (col. 9, lines 54-66 – the call handler 210 interacts with the remote party) in response to a communication event (col. 9, lines 54-66 – a remote party wishes to setup a callback facilitated through the call center (col. 4, lines 13-22) and the callback module notifies the call handler over a signaling link that the remote party is interested in setting up a callback); and configuring the service handler by setting execution code of a service handler (col. 9, lines 54-66 – setting up a callback, the speech analytics module SAM 220, event handler module EHM 240 and the callback module 250 notify the call handler 210; col. 6, lines 45-52 and col. 17, lines 11-31 – each of the module SAM 220, EHM 240 and callback module 250 is a software module comprising a set of computer instructions).
Mekonnen does not explicitly discuss routing of incoming hypertext transport protocol (HTTP) requests; and error handling of a web application.
Ergezinger teaches the service handler checks whether there is a matching string within the URL (http request) in step 700 of FIG. 7 ([0093]); The gateway receives requests from WAP and i-mode users. It interprets these requests and on behalf of the user terminal requests the content from the service provider. It does this by establishing a HTTP or HTTPS connection to the service provider to retrieve the content ([0099]); and A delivery check function of the access manager checks whether a response from the content service provider includes an http error code. If an error code is received, an error message is generated to the user (terminal) and no actual billing takes place ([0065]); If the access manager receives a request, which carries the user status "potential", the request will be redirected to an application, which captures the relevant user data and subsequently upgrades the status to "registered". If access to the access manager itself or subsequent services is denied to the client, the status is "blocked". The error message appears in the language used by the user to enter his data (potential status). If the status is "registered", the request is presented to the "Identification" function ([0091]); When the service mediator 24 receives a message in which the tariff as indicated is higher than the maximum amount for that content provider, the service mediator 24 will not accept the message (and inform the sender of the message using an error code in the response message) ([0111]); setting the maximum number of parallel connections for each content provider 23 in the provider profile. When a content provider 23 wants to open additional sessions, the service mediator 24 will ignore these messages and send an error code to the content provider 23 ([0115]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Ergezinger into the teachings of Mekonnen for the purpose of having the service handler will now decide whether the request should be passed to a content provider using the services of the access manager, or whether it should be passed to an application to capture more user data, Ergezinger [0093].
As to claims 3, 15, and 20, Mekonnen teaches the communication platform of claim 1, the method of claim 13, and the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 18, wherein the operations further comprises: receiving, via a network and from a user, the execution code of the service handler (Fig. 2 and related text, communication network 203; col. 9, lines 54-66 – setting up a callback, the speech analytics module SAM 220, event handler module EHM 240 and the callback module 250 notifies the call handler 210; col. 4, lines 45-52 and col. 17, lines 11-31 – each of the module SAM 220, EHM 240 and callback module 250 is a software module comprising a set of compute instructions).
As to claims 4 and 16, Mekonnen teaches the communication platform of claim 1 and the method of claim 13, wherein the operations further comprises: in response to the communication event, (col. 4, lines 13-20 – call center, an automatic call distributor or ACD), the execution code (col. 6, lines 45-52 and col. 17, lines 11-31 – each of the module SAM 220, EHM 240 and callback module 250 is a software module comprising a set of computer instructions) of the service handler (col. 9, lines 54-66 – the call handler 210 interacts with the remote party).
As to claims 5 and 17, Mekonnen teaches the communication platform of claim 4 and the method of claim 16, wherein the operations further comprises: generating a service handler response (col. 9, lines 54-66 – the call handler 210 interacts with the remote party); and
augmenting the communication in accordance with the service handler response (col. 9, lines 54-66 – the call handler 210 interacts with the remote party and obtains information to set up the callback).
As to claim 6, Mekonnen teaches the communication platform of claim 5 wherein the communication is a synchronous communication (voice) session (col. 8, lines 62-63 – a remote party places a call (voice) to the contact center; col. 9, lines 54-65 – the remote party wishes to set up a callback and the callback placed to the remote party at the appropriate time), the service handler response is a synchronous communication instruction (col. 9, lines 54-66 – the call handler 210 interacts with the remote party, the callback placed to the remote party at the appropriate time), and augmenting the communication comprises executing the synchronous communication within the communication (col. 9, lines 54-66 – the call handler 210 interacts with the remote party and obtains information to set up the callback, the callback placed to the remote party at the appropriate time).
As to claim 7, Mekonnen teaches the communication platform of claim 6 wherein the synchronous communication session is a voice session (col. 8, lines 62-63 – a remote party places a call to the contact center; col. 9, lines 54-65 – the remote party wishes to set up a callback and the callback placed to the remote party at the appropriate time).
Claims 13 and 18 are rejected for the same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1. Furthermore, teaches a non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions that when executed by one or more computer processors of a communication platform (col. 17, lines 32-59; claim 9).
3. Claims 2, 14, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mekonnen et al. (US Patent 9,191,508) and Ergezinger et al. (2004/0139204) in view of Clark (2015/0317613).
As to claims 2, 14, and 19, Mekonnen and Ergezinger do not explicitly discuss the communication platform of claim 1, the method of claim 13, and the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 18, wherein an account identifier and an authorization token are environment variables accessible by the execution code.
Clark teaches generating an authorization token associated with the cardholder account and transmitting the authorization token to the third-party computer system; receiving a request for transaction data from the third-party computer system, wherein the request for transaction data includes the secure identifier; retrieving the primary account identifier based upon the secure identifier; receiving an identifier associated with at least one of third-party software associated with the third-party computer system and the third-party computer system; generating a request form configured to transmit the set of authentication information directly to the payment processor computer system, and providing the request form to the third-party computer system, wherein the request form is embedded within third-party software configured to be executed on the third-party computer system ([0046]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Clark into the teachings of Mekonnen and Ergezinger for the purpose of achieving technical effects by performing validation and generating an authorization token and provides authorization token to the third party computer system and using a secure identifier to retrieve transaction data associated with the cardholder account, (Clark, abstract and [0046]).
4. Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mekonnen et al. (US Patent 9,191,508) and Ergezinger et al. (2004/0139204) in view of Pierce et al. (2017/0171253).
As to claim 8, Mekonnen and Ergezinger do not explicitly discuss the communication platform of claim 6, wherein the synchronous communication session is a video session.
Pierce teaches synchronous communication sessions include an audio call, a video call ([0026]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Pierce into the teachings of Mekonnen and Ergezinger for the purpose of having synchronous communication sessions that include but not limited to an audio call but also include video call and using either one or both audio or video call.
As to claim 9, Mekonnen teaches augmenting the communication in accordance with the service handler response (col. 9, lines 54-66 – the call handler 210 interacts with the remote party and obtains information to set up the callback). Mekonnen and Ergezinger do not explicitly discuss executing the message instruction for the communication.
Pierce teaches the requesting device is capable of sending a request to the recipient device using an asynchronous messaging service and the recipient device is capable of sending an asynchronous reply to the requesting device instructing the requesting device to initiate the communication session to the recipient device ([0129]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Pierce into the teachings of Mekonnen and Ergezinger for the purpose of having other forms of communication such as asynchronous messaging service.
5. Claims 10, 11 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mekonnen et al. (US Patent 9,191,508) Ergezinger et al. (2004/0139204) in view of Butler et al. (US Patent 6,141,724).
As to claim 10, Mekonnen and Ergezinger do not explicitly discuss the communication platform of claim 4, wherein the executing of the execution code comprises: relaying a media object of a communication to the service handler; and applying a transformation to the media object.
Butler teaches an application executing on the call handler (Figs. 3 and 5B) and a call is incoming on the system of an application, applying control to a Play Audio Clip object (media object) to play welcome and/or thank you and good-bye message (col. 5, lines 29-45).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Butler into the teachings of Mekonnen and Ergezinger for the purpose of using play audio clip object or media object to output an audio stream such as welcome, thank you, or good-bye messages.
As to claim 11, Mekonnen taches the method of claim 1 further comprising setting an association between the service handler and the communication event of the communication platform (col. 9, lines 54-66 – a remote party wishes to setup a callback facilitated through the call center (col. 4, lines 13-22) and the callback module notifies the call handler over a signaling link that the remote party is interested in setting up a callback); Butler teaches presenting, within the communication platform (Fig. 1), an application builder 30 and an application designer 32 (col. 3, lines 10-17) comprises graphical user interface 50 (col. 4, lines 1-4); wherein within the application builder user interface, selecting the service handler as an event handler option of a component of the application builder user interface (Fig. 3 and col. 3, lines 10-17).
6. Claim 12 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mekonnen, Ergezinger and Butler in view of Bertilsson et al. (2016/0077810).
As to claim 9, Mekonnen, Ergezinger and Butler do not explicitly discuss the method of claim 8 wherein the application builder user interface is a visual workflow editor.
Bertilsson teaches ([0150] and Fig. 21 – a graphical user interface 1400 is a form editor for creating input forms, output forms, form collections of an application builder system).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Bertilsson into the teachings of Mekonnen, Ergezinger and Butler for the purpose of allowing users to create an application data structure using for editor for creating input forms, output forms, and form collections.
Double Patenting
7. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
8. Claims 1-20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,229,573 in view of in view of Ergezinger et al. (2004/0139204). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all the claimed limitations recited in the present application are broader and transparently found in the U.S. Patent 12,229,573 with obvious wording variations. When claims in the pending application are broader than the ones in the patent, the broad claims in the pending application are rejected under obviousness type double patenting over previously patented narrow claims, In re Van Ornum and Stang, 214 USPQ 761. Also, omission of an element and its function in a combination is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same functions as before. In re KARLSON (CCPA) 136 USPA 184 (1963).
U.S. Patent Application 18/990,010
U.S. Patent 12,229,573
A communication platform 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 communication platform to perform operations comprising:
9. A communication platform 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 communication platform to perform operations comprising:
receiving, at a communication platform, via a network and from a user, execution code of a service handler, wherein an account identifier and an authorization token are environment variables accessible by the execution code;
creating an application service that provides:
detecting an occurrence of a communication event of a communication facilitated through the communication platform, the communication event being associated with the service handler;
routing of incoming hypertext transport protocol (HTTP) requests to a service handler in response to a communication event; and
error handling of a web application; and
configuring the service handler by setting execution code of the service handler.
in response to the communication event, invoking the service handler by:
executing, within the communication platform, the execution code of the service handler; and
generating a service handler response; and
augmenting the communication in accordance with the service handler response.
Claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. 12,229,573 does not teach routing of incoming hypertext transport protocol (HTTP) requests to a service handler in response to a communication event; and error handling of a web application. Ergezinger teaches the service handler checks whether there is a matching string within the URL (http request) in step 700 of FIG. 7 ([0093]); The gateway receives requests from WAP and i-mode users. It interprets these requests and on behalf of the user terminal requests the content from the service provider. It does this by establishing a HTTP or HTTPS connection to the service provider to retrieve the content ([0099]); and A delivery check function of the access manager checks whether a response from the content service provider includes an http error code. If an error code is received, an error message is generated to the user (terminal) and no actual billing takes place ([0065]); If the access manager receives a request, which carries the user status "potential", the request will be redirected to an application, which captures the relevant user data and subsequently upgrades the status to "registered". If access to the access manager itself or subsequent services is denied to the client, the status is "blocked". The error message appears in the language used by the user to enter his data (potential status). If the status is "registered", the request is presented to the "Identification" function ([0091]); When the service mediator 24 receives a message in which the tariff as indicated is higher than the maximum amount for that content provider, the service mediator 24 will not accept the message (and inform the sender of the message using an error code in the response message) ([0111]); setting the maximum number of parallel connections for each content provider 23 in the provider profile. When a content provider 23 wants to open additional sessions, the service mediator 24 will ignore these messages and send an error code to the content provider 23 ([0115]). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Ergezinger into the teachings of Claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. 12,229,573 for the purpose of having the service handler will now decide whether the request should be passed to a content provider using the services of the access manager, or whether it should be passed to an application to capture more user data, Ergezinger [0093].
The examiner notes that claims 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13, 18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 1, 15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,229,573, respectively.
9. Claims 1-20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,740,917 in view of Ergezinger et al. (2004/0139204). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all the claimed limitations recited in the present application are broader and transparently found in the U.S. Patent 11,740,917 with obvious wording variations. When claims in the pending application are broader than the ones in the patent, the broad claims in the pending application are rejected under obviousness type double patenting over previously patented narrow claims, In re Van Ornum and Stang, 214 USPQ 761. Also, omission of an element and its function in a combination is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same functions as before. In re KARLSON (CCPA) 136 USPA 184 (1963).
U.S. Patent Application 18/990,010
U.S. Patent 11,740,917
13. A method comprising:
1. A method comprising:
creating an application service that provides:
detecting occurrence of a communication event correlated to a service handler implemented at a communication platform, the service handler being associated with a customized function for an account of the communication platform;
routing of incoming hypertext transport protocol (HTTP) requests to a service handler in response to a communication event; and
error handling of a web application; and
configuring the service handler by setting execution code of the service handler.
in response to the communication event, invoking, by the service handler, the customized function in a serverless execution environment provided by the communication platform.
Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,740,917 does not teach does not teach routing of incoming hypertext transport protocol (HTTP) requests to a service handler in response to a communication event; and error handling of a web application. Ergezinger teaches the service handler checks whether there is a matching string within the URL (http request) in step 700 of FIG. 7 ([0093]); The gateway receives requests from WAP and i-mode users. It interprets these requests and on behalf of the user terminal requests the content from the service provider. It does this by establishing a HTTP or HTTPS connection to the service provider to retrieve the content ([0099]); and A delivery check function of the access manager checks whether a response from the content service provider includes an http error code. If an error code is received, an error message is generated to the user (terminal) and no actual billing takes place ([0065]); If the access manager receives a request, which carries the user status "potential", the request will be redirected to an application, which captures the relevant user data and subsequently upgrades the status to "registered". If access to the access manager itself or subsequent services is denied to the client, the status is "blocked". The error message appears in the language used by the user to enter his data (potential status). If the status is "registered", the request is presented to the "Identification" function ([0091]); When the service mediator 24 receives a message in which the tariff as indicated is higher than the maximum amount for that content provider, the service mediator 24 will not accept the message (and inform the sender of the message using an error code in the response message) ([0111]); setting the maximum number of parallel connections for each content provider 23 in the provider profile. When a content provider 23 wants to open additional sessions, the service mediator 24 will ignore these messages and send an error code to the content provider 23 ([0115]). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Ergezinger into the teachings of Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,740,917 for the purpose of having the service handler will now decide whether the request should be passed to a content provider using the services of the access manager, or whether it should be passed to an application to capture more user data, Ergezinger [0093].
The examiner notes that claims 1, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 10, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 of U.S. Patent No. 11,740,917, respectively.
Conclusion
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QUYNH H NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-7489. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30AM-5:30PM.
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, Ahmad Matar can be reached on 571-272-7488. 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.
/QUYNH H NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2693
Prosecution Insights