DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is in reply to the communications filed on July 23, 2026. The Applicant’s Amendment and Request for Reconsideration has been received and entered.
Claims 1-21 are currently pending and have been examined. Claims 1, 8, and 15 have been amended.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on July 23, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments necessitated the new grounds of rejection.
Regarding the rejection of claims 1-21 under 35 USC 101, Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the reasons set forth infra.
Additionally, the Examiner respectfully argues that under Step 2A, Prong one, the steps of tracking performance of the test messages to generate performance testing data; determining, for each of the plurality of routing providers, a quality score indicating a likelihood that the text message delivered by a respective routing provider will be successfully delivered to the recipient device based on the performance testing data that describes the tracked performance of the test messages transmitted using a first route, among the routes, of the respective routing provider; and selecting, among the plurality of routing providers, a first routing provider to deliver the text message to the recipient device based at least on the quality score -- recite observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions that fall within the mental process grouping of abstract ideas. While Applicant asserts that the claims cannot recite a mental process because certain limitations including transmitting text messages through routing provider networks cannot practically be performed in the human mind, the Examiner respectfully argues that it is not required for every limitation of the claim to be mentally performable. At Step 2A, Prong One is whether the claim recites a judicial exception, at Prong 2, is where the technical limitations are evaluated to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application. Thus, the technical nature of the other limitations does not negate the abstract evaluative limitations.
Further, the Examiner respectfully argues that the claims set forth certain methods of organizing human activity, particularly commercial interactions including advertising, marketing, and sales activities/behaviors. Specifically, the culmination of the claims result in the causing of the text message to be transmitted to the recipient via a first provider. As per Applicant’s specification, “routing providers provide message delivery functionality to customers” and is thus a commercial service as “routing providers charge customers a fee for each message delivered by the routing provider to an intended recipient.” (App. Spec. [0003]). Accordingly, the present claims recite an abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activity, particularly commercial interactions including advertising, marketing, and sales activities/behaviors.
Regarding Applicant’s assertions that the claims recite a specific technical mechanism for proactively evaluating telecommunications infrastructure, the Examiner respectfully argues that while the current invention occurs in a telecommunications environment, the claims do not recite any improvement to telecommunications technology. In the present claims, the test message transmission and tracking limitations generate the input information used for the quality score determination. The fact that this data is generated through network activity rather than retrieved in another manner, such as from a database, does not, without more, establish an improvement to telecommunications technology.
Applicant also relies on the limitation of "selecting, among the plurality of routing providers, a first routing provider to deliver the text message to the recipient device based at least on the quality score; and causing, by the message exchange system, the text message to be transmitted to the recipient device via the first routing provider" as a concrete application of the quality score. This limitation, however, merely implements the result of the preceding abstract evaluation. The claim does not recite how the transmission mechanism itself is technologically improved. Rather, it merely discloses that the providers selected from the abstract evaluation be used to perform the ordinary function of delivering the message. Merely applying the result of an abstract evaluation within a particular technological environment does not integrate the exception into a practical application.
While Applicant further argues that the claimed method improves the operation of the message exchange system by actively evaluating routing provider network performance and using that evaluation to improve routing, the Examiner respectively argues that claim 1 does not recite a particular improvement to a routing protocol network, transmission mechanism, or to the operation of routing provider networks themselves. Rather, the claims broadly require obtaining performance information, and determining the score representing a likelihood of successful delivery, selecting a provider based on that score, and transmitting the message through the selected provider. Thus, any improvement is based on making a more informed provider selection decision using the collected performance test data, rather than improving the functioning of any telecommunications technology. The Examiner further respectfully argues that the fact that the test messages are “distinct from text messages perceived from the client devices” does not establish a technological improvement.
While, Applicant asserts that the limitations are not recited at a high level of generality, the Examiner respectfully argues that the quality score is functionally defined only as indicating a likelihood of successful delivery, the claim does not specify how that likelihood is mathematically or technically determined from the tracked performance testing data. Likewise, the tracking performance is restricted according to its desired result rather than through a particular measurement or monitoring technique, accordingly the claims remain result-oriented and recited at a high level of generality.
Thus, the previous rejection of claims 1-21 under 35 USC 101 are maintained.
Applicant’s remaining arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Particularly, Applicant’s arguments are directed to the instantly amended claims, and are thus moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Additionally, the Examiner respectfully argues that, as established infra, Nowack teaches the newly added limitations of the amended claims. Specifically, Nowack discloses at [0029] the steps of the invention may be applied towards an embodiment used in testing routing options.; at [0037] sending a coded identifier in a message, tracking message delivery through a processed coded identifier, and generating a score for message delivery which enables the testing of message communication; at [0021 sending a first outgoing message through a first channel using a first routing option and a second routing option for at least a second outgoing message from the plurality of routing options; at [0043]-[0045] the messaging service may enable developers to programmatically send messages for any suitable use-case, the a subset may share links or send pin codes. This subset of use-cases can preferably provide routing data to inform the routing of other messages. Accordingly, Nowack teaches transmitting test messages using routes of a plurality of routing providers to test the routes, wherein the test messages are distinct from text messages received from client devices
Moreover, Nowack discloses at [0029] the steps of the invention may be applied towards an embodiment used in testing routing options; at [0037] sending a coded identifier in a message, tracking message delivery through a processed coded identifier, and generating a score for message delivery which enables the testing of message communication; at [0043] generating a score for message delivery, functions to use tracked message delivery across the message-supported service to determine a state of message communication. The score preferably relates to the quality of message deliverability. The service can track what routing option is used for sending the coded identifier, and message delivery is tracked for that particular routing option; at [0024] receiving a message delivery that indicates the success or failure of message delivery. Therefore, Nowack teaches tracking performance of the test messages to generate performance testing data.
Further , Nowack discloses at [0029] the steps of the invention may be applied towards an embodiment used in testing routing options; at [0037] sending a coded identifier in a message, tracking message delivery through a processed coded identifier, and generating a score for message delivery which enables the testing of message communication. The score reflects the operational health of messaging communication and more preferably a messaging routing option, is preferably related to specific routing options, and may be used in the determination of subsequent routing options; at [0043] generating a score for message delivery, functions to use tracked message delivery across the message-supported service to determine a state of message communication. The score preferably relates to the quality of message deliverability. The service can track what routing option is used for sending the coded identifier, and message delivery is tracked for that particular routing option. Thus, Nowack teaches a quality score indicating a likelihood that the text message delivered by a respective routing provider will be successfully delivered to the recipient device based on the performance testing data that describes the tracked performance of the test messages transmitted using a first route, among the routes, of the respective routing provider.
In response to Applicant’s argument that there is no established prima facie case of obviousness to because the stated reason to combine Zonoun and Nowack are conclusory, the Examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). As established in the previous Office Action, and re-established below, the combination of Zonoun and Nowack (specifically, the applying the transmitting test messages using routes of a plurality of routing providers to test the routes, wherein the test messages are distinct from text messages received from client devices; tracking performance of the test messages to generate performance testing data; and a quality score indicating a likelihood that the text message delivered by a respective routing provider will be successfully delivered to the recipient device based on the performance testing data that describes the tracked performance of the test messages transmitted using a first route, among the routes, of the respective routing provider as taught by Nowack, to the teachings of Zonoun) would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved method that would ensure the integrity and reliability of communicating a message. (Nowack: [0003]-[0004]]).
The Examiner respectfully notes that the term “Moran” was a typo and has been corrected accordingly to read “Nowack”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Step 1. When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
Step 2A – Prong One. If the claims fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claims recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon.
Step 2A – Prong Two. If the claims recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon, it must then be determined whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. If the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, then the claims are directed to a judicial exception.
Step 2B. If the claims are directed to a judicial exception, it must be evaluated whether the claims recite additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (i.e. “significantly more”) than the recited judicial exception.
In the instant case, claim 1-7 and 21 are directed to a process; claims 8-14 are directed to a machine; and claims 15-20 are directed to a manufacture.
A claim “recites” an abstract idea if there are identifiable limitations that fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in MPEP 2106. In the instant case, claim 1, and similarly claims 8 and 14, recites the steps of: transmitting test messages using routes of a plurality of providers to test the routes, wherein the test messages are distinct from messages received from client; tracking performance of the test messages to generate performance testing data; receiving, from a client corresponding with a first account associated with a message exchange, a first client request to transmit a message to a recipient; responsive to receiving the first client request, determining, for each of a plurality of providers, a quality score indicating a likelihood that the message delivered by a respective provider will be successfully delivered to the recipient based on the performance testing data that describes the tracked performance of the test messages transmitted using a first route, among the routes, of the respective provider, wherein the recipient is a destination of the message; selecting, among the plurality of providers, a first provider to deliver the message to the recipient based at least on the quality score; and causing, by the message exchange, the message to be transmitted to the recipient via the first provider -- these claim limitations set forth certain methods of organizing human activity, particularly commercial interactions including advertising, marketing, and sales activities/behaviors.
Additionally, these steps set forth mental processes, particularly concepts performed in the human mind or by a human using a pen and paper, including, inter alia, the observation and evaluation of information.
The limitations of the claims are not indicative of integration into a practical application. Taking the independent claim elements separately, the additional elements of performing the steps via from client devices, with/by a message exchange system, a text message, a recipient device, wherein the recipient device is a terminal destination, and routing providers -- merely implement the abstract idea on a computer environment. Additionally, taking the dependent claim elements separately, the additional elements of the text message comprising one of a short message service (SMS) message or rich communication service (RCS) message also merely implement the abstract idea on a computer environment. Considered in combination, the steps of Applicant’s method add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately.
Thus, claims 1-21 are directed to an abstract idea.
Regarding the independent claims, the technical elements of performing via from client devices, with/by a message exchange system, a text message, a recipient device, wherein the recipient device is a terminal destination, and routing providers -- merely implement the abstract idea on a computer environment. Additionally, regarding the dependent claims, the technical elements of the text message comprising one of a short message service (SMS) message or rich communication service (RCS) message also merely implement the abstract idea on a computer environment.
When considering the elements and combinations of elements, the claim(s) as a whole, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. This is because the claims do not amount to an improvement to another technology or technical field; the claims do not amount to an improvement to the functioning of a computer itself; the claims do not move beyond a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment; the claims merely amounts to the application or instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer; or the claims amounts to nothing more than requiring a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry.
The analysis above applies to all statutory categories of invention. Accordingly, claims 1-21 are rejected as ineligible for patenting under 35 USC 101 based upon the same rationale.
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 of this title, 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 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zonoun (US Pat No 6,487,172) in view of Nowack (US 2014/0031070).
As per claim 1, Zonoun teaches
receiving, from a client device corresponding with a first account associated with a message exchange system, a first client request to transmit a text message to a recipient device; (Zonoun: Figs. 1 and 2; Col. 3; Lns. 12-65 (Thus, when the bidding algorithm of the present invention is utilized, the bidding algorithm posts (broadcasts) a request for a bid from Company A to its border gates A1-A4. The request can take many forms, but an example of a “request for a bid” broadcast 11 is shown in FIG. 2. The broadcast 11 is comprised of a requester's (sender's) identification (ID) field 12, a destination ID field 13 and a request metric field 14, which is comprised of criteria for obtaining a routing metric field 14. The request metric field 14 includes information about the data packet(s) being sent and criteria for the type of routing metric values being sought. In the example and in the practice of the preferred embodiment, two types of metric values are typically being sought. One value sought is the actual cost of sending the packet(s) and the other is the amount of delay in transporting the packet(s) to the destination.); Col. 7; Lns. 12-65 (However, if the particular BG is serving the originating host (shown in block 55), the metric is collected in the metric table for the host (shown in block 60). If multiple valid table entries are present, the algorithm uses a particular decision-making parameter based on the received metric values for selecting the most desirable path. The desirable route is selected (shown in block 62), followed by the sending of the data packet or packets through the selected route (shown in block 63). In the preferred embodiment, cost and delay values are included within the routing metric. The cost value is the cost in monetary terms (dollars, for example) in sending the packet, while delay is measured in terms of time (for example, seconds). Thus, the host can determine which path provides the most cost savings or which path provides the least delay, in order to select one winning bid as the desired path. This choice allows distinguishing the most effective path for a given type of data being sent across the network. For example, text data can be sent by the less costly path, while telephony may opt for the path with the least delay.); Col. 4; Ln. 19-65)
responsive to receiving the first client request, determining, for each of the plurality of routing providers, a quality score indicating a likelihood that the text message delivered by a respective routing provider will be successfully delivered to the recipient device . . . , wherein the recipient device is a terminal destination of the text message (Zonoun: Fig. 3; Claim 1 (receiving at least one bid in response to the broadcast request, the bid including a routing metric associated with the transfer of the packet to the destination through a particular path); Col. 4; Ln. 19-65 (FIG. 3 shows a metric entry table (metric table) 15, generated by the algorithm and which table 15 tabulates the values received from the returning bid metrics. As noted, the table establishes entries for each of the border gates. Thus, the A1-A4 entries are listed. In the example table 15, the cost through AS3 is shown as $0.02, while through AS4 is $0.01. However, the delay is less through AS3 when compared to AS4 (0.2 sec versus 0.4 sec.). Thus, table 15 informs the originator that the route through A4 is half as costly, but the route through A3 is twice as fast.); Fig. 1; Col. 2, 37-52 (In the example of FIG. 1, a host (Host A) of Company A will send a packet to a destination host (Host B) of Company B. Host A typically would be a computer (such as a Personal Computer (PC)) coupled to Company A's private network and operated by an employee or agent of Company A. Likewise, Host B is a PC operated by Company B.))
selecting, among the plurality of routing providers, a first routing provider to deliver the text message to the recipient device based at least on the quality score; and (Zonoun: Fig. 7; Claim 1 (selecting a desired path to the destination based on the received routing metric.); Col. 7; Lns. 12-65 (However, if the particular BG is serving the originating host (shown in block 55), the metric is collected in the metric table for the host (shown in block 60). If multiple valid table entries are present, the algorithm uses a particular decision-making parameter based on the received metric values for selecting the most desirable path. The desirable route is selected (shown in block 62), followed by the sending of the data packet or packets through the selected route (shown in block 63). In the preferred embodiment, cost and delay values are included within the routing metric. The cost value is the cost in monetary terms (dollars, for example) in sending the packet, while delay is measured in terms of time (for example, seconds). Thus, the host can determine which path provides the most cost savings or which path provides the least delay, in order to select one winning bid as the desired path. This choice allows distinguishing the most effective path for a given type of data being sent across the network. For example, text data can be sent by the less costly path, while telephony may opt for the path with the least delay.))
causing, by the message exchange system, the text message to be transmitted to the recipient device via the first routing provider. (Zonoun: Fig. 7; Col. 7; Lns. 12-65 (If multiple valid table entries are present, the algorithm uses a particular decision-making parameter based on the received metric values for selecting the most desirable path. The desirable route is selected (shown in block 62), followed by the sending of the data packet or packets through the selected route (shown in block 63)))
Zonoun does not explicitly disclose the following known technique which is taught by Nowack:
transmitting test messages using routes of a plurality of routing providers to test the routes, wherein the test messages are distinct from text messages received from client devices; (Nowack: [0029] (As described below, the variation of Blocks S124 and S126 may be applied towards an embodiment used in testing or facilitating the selecting of routing options.); [0037] (As shown in FIG. 12, a method of a second preferred embodiment can include providing a messaging-supported service S210, sending a coded identifier in a message S220, tracking message delivery through a processed coded identifier S230, and generating a score for message delivery S240. The method functions to implement a service that, as at least one benefit, enables the testing of message communication through use of the service.); [0021] (As shown in FIG. 1, a method for controlling message routing of a preferred embodiment includes sending a first outgoing message through a first channel using a first routing option selected from a plurality of routing options Block S110, receiving a message delivery report through at least a second channel Block S120, updating message routing data with the message delivery report Block S130; selecting a second routing option for at least a second outgoing message, the second routing option selected from the plurality of routing options according to an optimality assessment of the message routing data Block S140.); [0029] (As shown in FIG. 6, a variation of the preferred embodiment includes redirecting links through a monitored system Block S124, which functions to place an intermediary component capable of generating a delivery report once an action was taken for a particular message.); [0023]-[0024] (The routing options may be characterized by different service providers, networks, geographic locations, physical machines, resource addresses, contractual agreements, communication protocols, time-dependent quality/performance properties, and/or any other suitable distinguishing characteristics of message routing node . . . The outgoing message . . . may alternatively be sent to a plurality of endpoints. In a variation where the outgoing message is sent to a plurality of destination endpoints, Block S130 preferably includes receiving message delivery reports through at least a second channel for a plurality of destination endpoints.); Fig. 2; [0039]; [0043]-[0045] (For example, the messaging service may enable developers to programmatically send messages for any suitable use-case. Of those, a subset may share links or send pin codes. This subset of use-cases can preferably provide routing data to inform the routing of other messages.))
tracking performance of the test messages to generate performance testing data; (Nowack: [0029] (As described below, the variation of Blocks S124 and S126 may be applied towards an embodiment used in testing or facilitating the selecting of routing options.); [0037] (As shown in FIG. 12, a method of a second preferred embodiment can include providing a messaging-supported service S210, sending a coded identifier in a message S220, tracking message delivery through a processed coded identifier S230, and generating a score for message delivery S240. The method functions to implement a service that, as at least one benefit, enables the testing of message communication through use of the service.); [0043] (Block S240, which includes generating a score for message delivery, functions to use tracked message delivery across the message-supported service to determine a state of message communication. The score preferably relates to the quality of message deliverability. The message-supported service can additionally selectively use different message delivery options to generate a score for particular communication options. For example, the service can track what routing option is used for sending the coded identifier, and message delivery is tracked for that particular routing option.); [0028]; [0024 (Block S120, which recites receiving a message delivery report through at least a second channel, functions to obtain feedback from the message destination. The message delivery report preferably indicates the status of the message at the destination endpoint, and the message delivery report is preferably generated in response to the message arriving at the destination. In one variation, the message delivery report indicates the success or failure of message delivery to the intended destination(s). If a message is received, the message delivery report will preferably indicate that the message was successfully received.))
. . . a quality score indicating a likelihood that the text message delivered by a respective routing provider will be successfully delivered to the recipient device based on the performance testing data that describes the tracked performance of the test messages transmitted using a first route, among the routes, of the respective routing provider; (Nowack: [0029] (As described below, the variation of Blocks S124 and S126 may be applied towards an embodiment used in testing or facilitating the selecting of routing options.); [0037] (As shown in FIG. 12, a method of a second preferred embodiment can include providing a messaging-supported service S210, sending a coded identifier in a message S220, tracking message delivery through a processed coded identifier S230, and generating a score for message delivery S240. The method functions to implement a service that, as at least one benefit, enables the testing of message communication through use of the service. . . . The score reflects the operational health of messaging communication and more preferably a messaging routing option. . . . The score is preferably related to specific routing options and may be used in the determination of subsequent routing options such as in the method described above.); [0043] (Block S240, which includes generating a score for message delivery, functions to use tracked message delivery across the message-supported service to determine a state of message communication. The score preferably relates to the quality of message deliverability. The message-supported service can additionally selectively use different message delivery options to generate a score for particular communication options. For example, the service can track what routing option is used for sending the coded identifier, and message delivery is tracked for that particular routing option.); [0028]; [0024])
This known technique is applicable to the method of Zonoun as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to sending data.
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have recognized that applying the known technique of Nowack would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved method. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Nowack to the teachings of Zonoun would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such test message features into similar methods. Further, applying the transmitting test messages using routes of a plurality of routing providers to test the routes, wherein the test messages are distinct from text messages received from client devices; tracking performance of the test messages to generate performance testing data; and a quality score indicating a likelihood that the text message delivered by a respective routing provider will be successfully delivered to the recipient device based on the performance testing data that describes the tracked performance of the test messages transmitted using a first route, among the routes, of the respective routing provider to the teachings of Zonoun would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved method that would ensure the integrity and reliability of communicating a message. (Nowack: [0003]-[0004]])
As per claim 2, Zonoun/Nowark teach wherein determining, for each of the plurality of routing providers, the quality score indicating the likelihood that the text message delivered by the respective routing provider will be successfully delivered to the recipient device comprises: (Zonoun: Fig. 3; Claim 1; Col. 4; Ln. 19-65)
determining feedback data describing an actual performance of the respective routing provider in delivering previous text messages, wherein the quality score is determined using the feedback data. (Nowack: [0037] (tracking message delivery through a processed coded identifier S230, and generating a score for message delivery S240. The score reflects the operational health of messaging communication and more preferably a messaging routing option. The score is obtained through the transformation of service communication to a trackable user interaction. Some embodiments of the method, in a sense, transparently crowdsources communication testing to users of the messaging-supported service. The score is preferably related to specific routing options and may be used in the determination of subsequent routing options such as in the method described above.); [0043] (Block S240, which includes generating a score for message delivery, functions to use tracked message delivery across the message-supported service to determine a state of message communication. The score preferably relates to the quality of message deliverability. The message-supported service can additionally selectively use different message delivery options to generate a score for particular communication options. For example, the service can track what routing option is used for sending the coded identifier, and message delivery is tracked for that particular routing option.); [0028])
The motivation for applying the known techniques of Nowack to the teachings of Zonoun is the same as that set forth above, in the rejection of Claim 1.
As per claim 3, Zonoun/Nowack teach wherein the feedback data identifies (i) whether the previous text messages were successfully received by recipient devices. (Nowack: [0037] (tracking message delivery through a processed coded identifier S230, and generating a score for message delivery S240. The score reflects the operational health of messaging communication and more preferably a messaging routing option. The score is obtained through the transformation of service communication to a trackable user interaction. Some embodiments of the method, in a sense, transparently crowdsources communication testing to users of the messaging-supported service. The score is preferably related to specific routing options and may be used in the determination of subsequent routing options such as in the method described above.); [0043] (Block S240, which includes generating a score for message delivery, functions to use tracked message delivery across the message-supported service to determine a state of message communication. The score preferably relates to the quality of message deliverability. The message-supported service can additionally selectively use different message delivery options to generate a score for particular communication options. For example, the service can track what routing option is used for sending the coded identifier, and message delivery is tracked for that particular routing option.); [0028])
The motivation for applying the known techniques of Nowack to the teachings of Zonoun is the same as that set forth above, in the rejection of Claim 1.
As per claim 4, Zonoun/Nowack teach wherein the feedback data further identifies (ii) whether the previous text messages resulted in a specified action by recipients associated with the recipient devices. (Nowack: [0028] (As shown in FIG. 4, a variation of the preferred embodiment may include providing a user feedback interface Block S123, which functions to enable reports to be filed through an application programming interface (API) or a visual interface. The interface preferably enables issues with the delivery of a particular message to be logged. As shown in FIGS. 5A and 5B, a user may select a message and file a report. The filed report preferably updates the delivery report, which in turn will be factored into the optimality assessment for future messages. Similarly, reports may be filed programmatically using an API. This preferably enables developers of messaging applications to provide their own user-facing interface. The API is preferably used to collect message, voice, and/or video quality from a user (e.g., a user of a service or a developer). In one variation, a developer may integrate a poll during an interaction with an application, preferably at the end of the interaction. The user response to the poll is then added to a delivery report using the feedback API.))
The motivation for applying the known techniques of Nowack to the teachings of Zonoun is the same as that set forth above, in the rejection of Claim 1.
As per claim 5, Zonoun/Nowack teach wherein the text message comprises one of a short message service (SMS) message or rich communication service (RCS) message. (Nowack: [0022] (Telephony messaging preferably includes SMS))
The motivation for applying the known techniques of Nowack to the teachings of Zonoun is the same as that set forth above, in the rejection of Claim 1.
As per claim 6, Zonoun/Nowack teach further comprising:
receiving, from a second client device associated with the message exchange system, a second client request to configure criteria identifying client preferences for text message delivery for a plurality of text message types, each of the plurality of text message types corresponding to a classification of text messages based on content of a respective text message, (Zonoun: Figs. 1 and 2; Col. 3; Lns. 12-65 (Thus, when the bidding algorithm of the present invention is utilized, the bidding algorithm posts (broadcasts) a request for a bid from Company A to its border gates A1-A4. The request can take many forms, but an example of a “request for a bid” broadcast 11 is shown in FIG. 2. The broadcast 11 is comprised of a requester's (sender's) identification (ID) field 12, a destination ID field 13 and a request metric field 14, which is comprised of criteria for obtaining a routing metric field 14. The request metric field 14 includes information about the data packet(s) being sent and criteria for the type of routing metric values being sought. In the example and in the practice of the preferred embodiment, two types of metric values are typically being sought. One value sought is the actual cost of sending the packet(s) and the other is the amount of delay in transporting the packet(s) to the destination.); Col. 7; Lns. 12-65 (However, if the particular BG is serving the originating host (shown in block 55), the metric is collected in the metric table for the host (shown in block 60). If multiple valid table entries are present, the algorithm uses a particular decision-making parameter based on the received metric values for selecting the most desirable path. The desirable route is selected (shown in block 62), followed by the sending of the data packet or packets through the selected route (shown in block 63). In the preferred embodiment, cost and delay values are included within the routing metric. The cost value is the cost in monetary terms (dollars, for example) in sending the packet, while delay is measured in terms of time (for example, seconds). Thus, the host can determine which path provides the most cost savings or which path provides the least delay, in order to select one winning bid as the desired path. This choice allows distinguishing the most effective path for a given type of data being sent across the network. For example, text data can be sent by the less costly path, while telephony may opt for the path with the least delay.); Col. 4; Ln. 19-65)
wherein selecting, among the plurality of routing providers, the first routing provider to deliver the text message to the recipient device is further based at least on the criteria. (Zonoun: Fig. 7; Claim 1 (selecting a desired path to the destination based on the received routing metric.); Col. 7; Lns. 12-65 (However, if the particular BG is serving the originating host (shown in block 55), the metric is collected in the metric table for the host (shown in block 60). If multiple valid table entries are present, the algorithm uses a particular decision-making parameter based on the received metric values for selecting the most desirable path. The desirable route is selected (shown in block 62), followed by the sending of the data packet or packets through the selected route (shown in block 63). In the preferred embodiment, cost and delay values are included within the routing metric. The cost value is the cost in monetary terms (dollars, for example) in sending the packet, while delay is measured in terms of time (for example, seconds). Thus, the host can determine which path provides the most cost savings or which path provides the least delay, in order to select one winning bid as the desired path. This choice allows distinguishing the most effective path for a given type of data being sent across the network. For example, text data can be sent by the less costly path, while telephony may opt for the path with the least delay.))
As per claim 7, Zonoun/Nowack teach wherein the second client request is further to configure the criteria identifying the client preferences for the text message delivery with respect to geographic regions in which the text messages are transmitted. (Nowack: [0023] (The routing options may be characterized by different service providers, networks, geographic locations, physical machines, resource addresses, contractual agreements, communication protocols, time-dependent quality/performance properties, and/or any other suitable distinguishing characteristics of message routing node.); [0034] (geographic region); [0043])
The motivation for applying the known techniques of Nowack to the teachings of Zonoun is the same as that set forth above, in the rejection of Claim 1.
As per claims 8-14, these claims are substantially similar to claims 1-7, respectively, and are therefore rejected in the same manner as these claims, as set forth above.
As per claims 15-20, these claims are substantially similar to claims 1-4, 6, and 7, respectively, and are therefore rejected in the same manner as these claims, as set forth above.
As per claim 21, Zonoun/Nowack teach determining, for a first routing provider of the plurality of routing providers, a first quality score using first feedback data describing an actual performance of the first routing provider in delivering first previous text messages, . . . (Zonoun: Fig. 3; Claim 1 (receiving at least one bid in response to the broadcast request, the bid including a routing metric associated with the transfer of the packet to the destination through a particular path); Col. 4; Ln. 19-65 (FIG. 3 shows a metric entry table (metric table) 15, generated by the algorithm and which table 15 tabulates the values received from the returning bid metrics. As noted, the table establishes entries for each of the border gates. Thus, the A1-A4 entries are listed. In the example table 15, the cost through AS3 is shown as $0.02, while through AS4 is $0.01. However, the delay is less through AS3 when compared to AS4 (0.2 sec versus 0.4 sec.). Thus, table 15 informs the originator that the route through A4 is half as costly, but the route through A3 is twice as fast.); Fig. 1; Col. 2, 37-52 (In the example of FIG. 1, a host (Host A) of Company A will send a packet to a destination host (Host B) of Company B. Host A typically would be a computer (such as a Personal Computer (PC)) coupled to Company A's private network and operated by an employee or agent of Company A. Likewise, Host B is a PC operated by Company B.)),
wherein the first feedback data identifies (i) whether the first previous text messages were successfully received by recipient devices, and (ii) whether the first previous text messages resulted in a specified action by recipients associated with the recipient devices; and determining, for a second routing provider of the plurality of routing providers, a second quality score using second feedback data describing an actual performance of the second routing provider in delivering second previous text messages. (Nowack: [0037] (tracking message delivery through a processed coded identifier S230, and generating a score for message delivery S240. The score reflects the operational health of messaging communication and more preferably a messaging routing option. The score is obtained through the transformation of service communication to a trackable user interaction. Some embodiments of the method, in a sense, transparently crowdsources communication testing to users of the messaging-supported service. The score is preferably related to specific routing options and may be used in the determination of subsequent routing options such as in the method described above.); [0043] (Block S240, which includes generating a score for message delivery, functions to use tracked message delivery across the message-supported service to determine a state of message communication. The score preferably relates to the quality of message deliverability. The message-supported service can additionally selectively use different message delivery options to generate a score for particular communication options. For example, the service can track what routing option is used for sending the coded identifier, and message delivery is tracked for that particular routing option.); [0028] (As shown in FIG. 4, a variation of the preferred embodiment may include providing a user feedback interface Block S123, which functions to enable reports to be filed through an application programming interface (API) or a visual interface. The interface preferably enables issues with the delivery of a particular message to be logged. As shown in FIGS. 5A and 5B, a user may select a message and file a report. The filed report preferably updates the delivery report, which in turn will be factored into the optimality assessment for future messages. Similarly, reports may be filed programmatically using an API. This preferably enables developers of messaging applications to provide their own user-facing interface. The API is preferably used to collect message, voice, and/or video quality from a user (e.g., a user of a service or a developer). In one variation, a developer may integrate a poll during an interaction with an application, preferably at the end of the interaction. The user response to the poll is then added to a delivery report using the feedback API.))
The motivation for applying the known techniques of Nowack to the teachings of Zonoun is the same as that set forth above, in the rejection of Claim 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Moran (US PGP 2002/0177448) -- produce various tabular reports and/or graphs depicting various performance criteria for the service providers that are evaluated
Das (US PGP 2010/0228641) -- online advertising system integrates third party agents to permit the third party agents to participate in auctions to bid on a per opportunity basis.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER V LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-4778. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9AM - 5PM EST.
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, MARISSA THEIN can be reached at (571)272-6764. 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.
/JENNIFER V LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 3688
/VICTORIA E. FRUNZI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3689 10/1/2026
