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 12/13/2024. Claims 1-20 are pending examination.
Claim Objections
Claim 18 says “a memory and one or processors”. It appears that “more” was accidentally omitted. The present language is grammatically incomplete.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 8 recites
“exchanging messages through the selected intermediary endpoint. However, claim 6 , from which claim 8 depends, recites “selecting an intermediary endpoint for each participant endpoint from the first subset of participant endpoints.”. Therefore, claim 6 may result in a plurality of selected intermediary endpoints, while claim 8 refers to “the selected intermediary endpoint” in the singular. It is not clear which selected endpoint Is intended by the limitation “the selected intermediary endpoint” in claim 8.
Claim 5 recites the limitation " the conversation resource" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 does not previously introduce “conversation resource”, claim 1 introduces only “a conversation associated with a plurality of participant endpoints. Claims 6 and 7 have the same issue because of dependency.
Double Patenting
Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being over claims 1-20 copending application number 19/007,077.
This rejection is provisional because the claims of the copending application have not been patented. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct. The claims of the copending application are directed to substantially the same multi-channel group communication subject matter, including receiving an initiating communication subject matter, including receiving an initiating communication through programmatic interface to establish a conversation involving a plurality of participant endpoints, communication with participants endpoints over different communication channels, configuring intermediary endpoints , translating group communications into formats compatible with the respective communication channels, and transiting the communications to the participants endpoints. The instant claims represent narrower, rearranged, or expressly stated variations of the same multi-channel group communication and intermediary endpoint subject matter claims in the copending application. A person of ordinary skill int eh art would have found the presently claimed variations obvious in view of the claims of copending applications. Therefore, claims 1-20 are not patentably distinct from the claims of the copending applications. This rejection is provisional because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. The provisional rejection may be considered as appropriate depending upon the disposition of the claims in the respective applications.
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)).
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 herein after as Yi) in view of Bouthemy U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2012/0155459 and further in view of Ramaswamy et al. U.S. patent Pub. No. 2016/0269339 (referred to herein after as Ramaswamy) .
As to claim 1, 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 on different communication channels (see Yi at least abstract paragraphs 0035, 0038 and fig.2, Yi teaches receiving from a host user, a request to establish a chat session. For a plurality of participants and identifies the chat platform associated with each participants and generates a virtual chat room to host the plurality or participants), wherein the plurality of participant endpoints comprises a first subset of participant endpoints on a first communication channel of the different communication channels and a second subset of participant endpoints on a second communication channel of the different communication channels ( see at least paragraphs 0063-0067, Yi teaches participants associated with different chat platforms, Yi further distinguished participants on the same chat platform from participants on a different platforms and determines whether direct or indirect/proxy messaging is required based on the respective platform.);
configuring, at a multi-tenant communication platform, a set of intermediary endpoints for communications with the first subset of participant endpoints (see at least paragraphs 0051, 0052, 0060, 0061 and claims 9 and 17, Yi teaches a chat server having a plurality of chat proxies with different chat platform. For multiple participants, Yi also identifies the platform associated with each participant and selects a chat proxy from the plurality or proxies for each participant whose platform differs from the host user’s platform. The chat proxies correspond to the intermediary endpoints); and responsive to receiving a group communication during the conversation, transmitting the group communication to the first subset of participant endpoints via the set of intermediary endpoints (see Yi at least paragraphs 0060-0066, Yi teaches receiving a chat message in the virtual room, determining that indirect messaging is required for recipients on a different chat platform , locating the chat proxy associated with the intended recipients , and sending the message through identified or selected chat proxy),
and transmitting the group communication directly to the second subset of participant endpoints (see Yi at least paragraphs 0063-0064, teaches direct messaging when the intended recipients are on the same chat platform as the sender. In that situation, the chat synchronizer sends the message using the delivery services of that particular chat platform without the use of the cross-platform proxy).
Yi implicitly teaches the invention as mentioned above, Yi does not explicitly teach “on the first communication channel that lacks support for group communications”. However, Bouthemy teaches group messaging across different messaging technologies and determining capabilities of the recipients. For example, for group MMS, the gateway determines whether all participants can receive MMS, when one or more cannot, alternative processing is performed. Bouthemy determines whether all participants can receive SMS and invokes alternative processing when one or more cannot (see paragraphs 45-46), Bouthemy also teaches group messaging across SMS, MMS and IM and recipient specific translation based on recipient or device characteristics.
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art, at the time of the invention, to combine the teaching of Bouthemy with those of Yi
To enable Yi’s system to support group communications among users of disparate messaging platform, including platform having different messaging formats and group messaging capabilities, thereby allowing group communications to be exchanged across a wider variety of communication channels.
Yi-Bouthemy do not but Ramaswamy (2016/0269339) teaches “multiple tenant communication” (see Ramaswamy paragraph 0020).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teaching of Ramaswamy with those of Yi-Bouthemy to support multiple tenants using a common communication platform to provide a scalable and efficient management of multi-channel communication service while maintaining communication resources associated with the respective tenants.
As to claim 2, Yi-Bouthemy- Ramaswamy 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 007, 0036 and 0057 – API and user interface).
As to claim 3, Yi- Bouthemy- Ramaswamy teaches the method of claim 1, 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 Yi paragraphs 0030-0091, the Proxy functions as an intermediary endpoint representing a participant on a communication channel different from the participant’s native channel).
As to claim 4, Yi- Bouthemy- Ramaswamy teaches the method of claim 3, 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 (Yi teaches selecting a chat proxy associated with the participant’s platform and communicating across disparate platforms through the selected proxy (claim 1 of Yi), furthermore, Yi teaches selecting a proxy for each participant associated with platform different from the hist’s platform. And Bouthemy teaches determining the messaging capabilities of group of participants and when one or more participants cannot receive the particular group message format, invoking alternative message processing for those participants (see at least paragraph 0045 and 0046).
As to claim 5, Yi- Bouthemy- Ramaswamy teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising translating the group communication to formats compatible to the different communication channels corresponding to the plurality of participant endpoints of the conversation resource (see Yi at least paragraph 0063 and Bouthemy claim 29).
As to claim 6, Yi- Bouthemy- Ramaswamy teaches the method of claim 5, Yi- Bouthemy- Ramaswamy teaches wherein translating the group communication comprises selecting an intermediary endpoint for each participant endpoint from the first subset of participant endpoints that is on the first communication channel (see at least Yi paragraphs 0023-0027, 0064 and 0082, per recipient translation).
As to claim 7, Yi- Bouthemy- Ramaswamy teaches the method of claim 6, 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 at least Yi (see clam 9 of Yi, identifying the communication platform associated with each participant and selecting the appropriate platform specific chat proxy for that participant).
As to claim 8, Bouthemy- Ramaswamy teaches the method of claim 1, 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 at least claim 1 of Yi, sending and receiving chat dialogue between users associated with disparate chat platforms through the selected chat proxy. Also teaches that indirect. Messaging causes the chat synchronizer to select the appropriate chat proxy for the intended recipient and send the message to the proxy middleware of the selected proxy for delivery through the corresponding external platform (Yi paragraph 0066).
As to claim 9, Bouthemy- Ramaswamy teaches the method of claim 8, 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 paragraphs 0030, 0065-0067, Yi teaches editing the message content so that the receiving users know who sent the message. The synchronizer may add the sending user’s name and/or other contact information ot the message, such that “From Richard, “thereby identifying the author or sender. Also modifying proxy-transmitted messages so they identify the originating user as the source).
As to claim 10, Bouthemy- Ramaswamy 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 claims 1, 3 and 9 of Yi . Yi teaches a host user together with a plurality of chat participants and generating a virtual chat room containing the plurality of participants, with participants associated with different platform. Yi also teachers a second participants on the same platform as the host while claims 1 teaches a first participant on a disparate platform, and therefore providing three participants, hot, first participants and second participant, across at least 2 different chat platforms.
Claims 11-20 do not teach anything above and beyond the limitations of claims 1-10 and rejected for similar reasons.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
De BOER et al. U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2018/0013701, Group Messaging , discloses A messaging server improves interworking of the Group-chat feature (such as defined in Rich Communications Services (RCS)) with short message services such as SMS. It matches chat invitations in an effective manner. When an RCS-User invites an SMS-User to an RCS Group-chat session, the identification of the RCS-User in the Group-chat to the SMS-User is via the MSISDN of the RCS-User. Using the MSISDN of the RCS-User in the RCS Group-chat invitation to the SMS-User will provide a direct match with the RCS-User MSISDN in the address-book of the SMS-User and therefore provide immediate clarity from who this Group-chat invitation was received. The SMS-User can accept or reject the Group-chat invitation by returning the proper response as requested in the invitation.
Malatck U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2015/0304934, System and Method for enabling Multi-Modal communication, discloses Systems and methods for a multi-tenant communication platform. At a multi-tenant communication platform, and responsive to authentication of a communication request provided by an external system, a routing address record of the communication platform is determined that matches a communication destination of the communication request. The matching routing address record associates the communication destination with a plurality of external communication providers. At least one communication provider associated with the matching routing address record is selected, and a request to establish communication with the communication destination is provided to each selected communication provider. The communication request specifies the communication destination and account information.
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