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
This office action is responsive to application filed on 12/31/2024. Claims 1-20 are pending examination.
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 (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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yi et al. U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2016/0149839 (referred to hereinafter as Yi) and further in view of Bouthemy U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2012/0155459).
As to claim1, Yi teaches a method of employing a programmatic interface to multi-channel group communications, the method comprising:
receiving, via the programmatic interface, an initiating communication triggering establishment of a conversation associated with a plurality of participant endpoints (see at least fi. 6A, boxes 132-134, paragraphs 0060 and 0061 and claims 1 and 8, Yi discloses receiving a request from a host user to establish a chat session with one or more users) ;
configuring, at a communication system, a conversation resource for the conversation and the plurality of participant endpoints to exchange group communications during the conversation on different communication channels (see at least fig.2, paragraphs 0035 and 0036, and claims 8-9, Yi discloses generating and maintaining a virtual chat room 60 for multiple participants including participants associated with different chat platform, and describes participants communicating through Facebook, skype, and local chat services as though they were in the same chat room) ;
responsive to receiving group communications directed to the conversation resource (see at least fig. 6A, boxes 142-154; 6B boxes 162-172, paragraph 0067, Yi discloses the chat synchronizer receives chat messages, determines the appropriate platform/chat proxy for the recipients, and sends the messages to the intended recipients through their respective chat platforms), translating the group communications to formats compatible to the different communication channels corresponding to the plurality of participant endpoints of the conversation resource (see at least fig. 6A, discussion of direct and indirect messaging, Yi teaches that where participants are on different, potentially incompatible platforms, the chat synchronizer may translate chat messages between the formats of the respective chat platforms); and
transmitting the translated group communications to the plurality of participant endpoints on the different communication channels (see at least paragraphs 0016 and 0031 sending chat messages between users of the same and different chat platforms).
Yi implicitly teaches the invention as mentioned above. Yi does not explicitly teach translating the group communication for the respective participants endpoints into formats compatible with their respective communication channels.
However, Bouthemy teaches providing that a messaging gateway translates a received message for each recipient according to the messaging mechanism appropriate for that recipient (see Bouthemy fig. 3, blocks 308-316; claims 1 and 12, teaches translating a message into a format associated with the destination device and communicating the translated message to the destination device).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art, at the time of the invention, to incorporate the recipient specific format translation into Yi’s multi-platform chat communication system in order to enable messages to be translated into format compatible with the respective communication channels of the participants, to facilitate communication between users of different or incompatible messaging platforms.
As to claim 2, Yi-Bouthemy teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the programmatic interface comprises an application programming interface (API) or a graphical user interface (see Yi at least paragraphs 0043 and 0057, teaches that the synchronizer 40 interacts with known API associated with the respective chat platforms to retrieve and communicate platform information).
As to claim 3, Yi-Bouthemy teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the conversation resource represents a construct to manage a session of communications (see at least fig.2; paragraphs 0035 and 0036, Yi teaches a virtual chat room 60 is created and maintained at chat server 20 for particular chat session, maintains the participating users, receives inbound and outbound messages and propagates changes to the participants).
As to claim 4, Yi-Bouthemy teaches the method of claim 1, wherein configuring the conversation resource for the conversation and the plurality of participant endpoints to exchange group communications during the conversation on different communication channels comprises configuring a set of intermediary endpoints for communications between at least a subset of the plurality of participant endpoints on different communication channels (see at least fig.1 and paragraphs 0069-0070, 0071, Yi teaches chat server 20 includes a plurality of chat proxies 30, including Facebook proxy 32, Skype proxy 34, WhatsApp proxy 36, and Viber Proxy 48, with each proxy corresponding to and communicating with a respective chat platform).
As to claim 5, Yi-Bouthemy teaches the method of claim 4, wherein an intermediary endpoint of the set of intermediary endpoints is used to represent a first participant endpoint within a second communication channel that is different from a first communication channel that is native to the first participant endpoint of a first participant (see at least paragraphs 0055-0057, Yi teaches that a chat proxy may log onto the corresponding chat platform either as the user or through its own account on behalf of a user thereby representing that user to participants of the other platform).
As to claim 6, Yi-Bouthemy teaches the method of claim 5, wherein configuring the set of intermediary endpoints comprises assigning a proxy intermediary endpoint for communications with participant endpoints on the second communication channel if the second communication channel does not support group communications (see Yi at least paragraph 0061, 0065, 0069 chat proxies 30 and Bouthemy in at least paragraphs-0035 0027 and fig. 3 teaches determining messaging capabilities of recipients and employing alternative messaging mechanisms to permit communication with recipients having different messaging capabilities) .
As to claim 7, Yi-Bouthemy teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of participant endpoints comprises a first subset of participant endpoints on a first communication channel and a second subset of participant endpoints on a second communication channel, and wherein translating the group communications to formats compatible to the different communication channels corresponding to the plurality of participant endpoints of the conversation resource comprises selecting an intermediary endpoint for each participant endpoint from the first subset of participant endpoints that is on the first communication channel (see abstract of Yi, fig.6A, claims 1 and 8, Yi determines that participants are associated with different chat platforms and selects a chat proxy configured to communicate with the particular platform associated with the participant).
As to claim 8, Yi-Bouthemy teaches the method of claim 7, wherein selecting the intermediary endpoint for each participant endpoint from the first subset of participant endpoints that is on the first communication channel comprises: selecting a type of intermediary endpoint for the first subset of participant endpoints based on group communication capabilities of the first communication channel (see Yi, fig 1, chat proxies 30, fig. 6A, Yi teaches each chat proxy is unique to a particular chat platform, and selects the appropriate proxy based upon that chat platform associated with the participants for example, Facebook proxy 32, Skype proxy 34, WhatsApp proxy 36 or Viber proxy 38).
As to claim 9, Yi-Bouthemy teaches the method of claim 7, further comprising: exchanging messages through the selected intermediary endpoint for messaging between the first subset of participant endpoints and the second subset of participant endpoints outside the first communication channel (see Yi abstract, fig. 6A, and claims 1 and 8, Yi teaches sending and receiving chat dialogue between users across different chat platforms via selected chat proxy and allowing users of incompatible platforms to participate in the same conversation).
As to claim10, Yi-Bouthemy teaches the method of claim 9, wherein exchanging messages through the selected intermediary endpoint for messaging between the first subset of participant endpoints and the second subset of participant endpoints outside the first communication channel further comprises annotating content of each of the messages to the first subset of participant endpoints with an identifier of a sending participant endpoint (see at least Yi paragraphs 0031, 0034, 0051, 0054-0058, discloses that messages sent through a proxy maybe modified by chat server 20 to identify the user of the client device as the source of the chat message, Yi further teaches that chat synchronizer 40 modifies messages, when necessary to identify the particular user associated with sending the message).
As to claim 11, Yi-Bouthemy teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of participant endpoints includes at least three participant endpoints from at least two distinct types of communication channels (see Yi fig. 2 and paragraph 0035, 0036 and 0039, Yi teaches a multi network chat session having multiple participants using different communication platforms. Yi provides a virtual chat room in which Richard uses the local chat platform Pliny uses Facebook chat platform, and Alex uses Skype chat platform, the three participants communicate in the same chat room through communication platform. Therefore, Yi teaches at least three participants endpoints
(Richard, Pliny and Alex) from at least two distinct types of communication channels (e.g. local chat, Facebook and Skype). Therefore, Yi in view of Bouthemy renders the claim obvious.
Claims 12-20 do not teach anything above and beyond the limitations of claims 1-11 and rejected for similar reasons.
Double Patenting
Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of United States Patent Application 19/007,130. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patent application claims contain every element of the instant application and as such is encompassed by the claims of this instant application. Claims 1-20 of the instant application therefore is/are not patently distinct from the patent application claim(s) and as such is/are unpatentable over obvious-type double patenting. A later patent/application claim is not patentably distinct from an earlier claim if the later claim is anticipated by the earlier claim. A later patent claim is not patentably distinct from an earlier patent claim if the later claim is obvious over, or anticipated by, the earlier claim. (In re Longi, 759 F.2d at 896,225 USPQ at 651 (affirming a holding of obviousness-type double patenting because the claims at issue were obvious over claims in four prior art patents); In re Berg, 140 F.3d at 1437, 46 USPQ2d at 1233 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (affirming a holding of obviousness type double patenting where a patent application claim to a genus is anticipated by a patent claim to a species within that genus); ELI LILLY AND COMPANY v BARR LABORATORIES, INC., United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, ON PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC (DECIDED: May 30, 2001) (Cf., Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985)); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 944, 214 USPQ 761, 767 (CCPA 1982); In re Goodman (CA FC) 29 USPQ2d 2010 (12/3/1993)).
Claims 1-20 are rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-16 of United States Patent 11,153,258 and over claims 1-20 of United States Patent 11,824,826 and over claims 1-20 of United States Patent 12,549,506. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patent claims contain every element of the instant application and as such is encompassed by the claims of this instant application. Claims 1-20 of the instant application therefore is/are not patently distinct from the earlier patent claim(s) and as such is/are unpatentable over obvious-type double patenting. A later patent/application claim is not patentably distinct from an earlier claim if the later claim is anticipated by the earlier claim. “A later patent claim is not patentably distinct from an earlier patent claim if the later claim is obvious over, or anticipated by, the earlier claim. (In re Longi, 759 F.2d at 896,225 USPQ at 651 (affirming a holding of obviousness-type double patenting because the claims at issue were obvious over claims in four prior art patents); In re Berg, 140 F.3d at 1437, 46 USPQ2d at 1233 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (affirming a holding of obviousness type double patenting where a patent application claim to a genus is anticipated by a patent claim to a species within that genus); ELI LILLY AND COMPANY v BARR LABORATORIES, INC., United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, ON PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC (DECIDED: May 30, 2001) (Cf., Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985)); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 944, 214 USPQ 761, 767 (CCPA 1982); In re Goodman (CA FC) 29 USPQ2d 2010 (12/3/1993)).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Zhu et al. U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2013/0073636, teaches a system and method for enabling a multi-platform chat service defines communication channels in accordance with group member presence information and allows the delivery of messages to the group members through the channels. When a recipient of a message replies, the reply is distributed in the same manner as the original message.
Park et al. U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2014/0108577, An apparatus and method are provided for performing interworking between different messaging services in a Converged Internet Protocol (IP) Messaging (CPM) service. The method includes receiving, by a CPM server, a message generated based on a user input from an arbitrary terminal; requesting, by the CPM server, a presence server to provide presence information corresponding to a recipient of the message; receiving, from the presence server, the presence information that is transmitted in response to the request; deciding a type of a messaging service for interworking based on the presence information; and delivering, by the CPM server, the message to an Interworking Function (IWF) that converts the message according to the decided type of the messaging service.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARGON N NANO whose telephone number is (571)272-4007. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 AM-3:30 PM. M.S.T..
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, Nicholas Taylor can be reached at 571 272 3889. 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.
/SARGON N NANO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2443
Prosecution Insights