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 . This non-final office action on merits is in response to the Patent Application filed on 01/17/2025.
Status of claims
Claims 1-20 are pending and considered below. This application is a Continuation of application 18/410253, filed on 01/11/2024, which is Continuation of application 17/443550, filed on 07/27/2021, which is a Continuation of application 16/585457, filed on 09/27/2019, which is a Continuation-in-part of application 15/437857, filed on 02/21/2017, which claims the benefit of Provisional Application No. 62/439,543, filed on 12/28/2016.
Double Patenting
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.
Claim 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-17 of U.S. Patent No. 10453565 B2 (’565 patent).
Claim 1 of the present application recites detecting a request from a source device in a first domain to transmit a message to a destination in a second domain without an endpoint address; identifying an intended target associated with the destination; generating and electronically communicating a transmission without the endpoint address; and, based on receiving at least a first response of a plurality of responses, electronically communicating an acknowledgement selected from a device acknowledgement and a read acknowledgement to the source device.
Claim 9 of the ’565 patent recites detecting a request to transmit a message including clinically relevant information to a destination within a separate domain where the target endpoint address is unknown; determining whether the destination is associated with a role; identifying an intended target associated with the role; generating and electronically communicating a transmission without the endpoint address; detecting a change in the clinically relevant information; generating an updated transmission; and communicating the updated transmission to the intended target.
The ’565 patent teaches the same core addressless, cross-domain, role-based messaging architecture as claim 1 of the present application, including (i) detecting a request lacking an endpoint address, (ii) identifying an intended target based on role, and (iii) electronically communicating a transmission to the intended target without an endpoint address. Claim 1 of the present application differs in that it emphasizes acknowledgement messaging back to the source device based on responses associated with the transmission. However, the ’565 patent teaches acknowledgement handling and response communication in dependent claims (claim 10, device and read acknowledgements; claim 11, response communication to the source device). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the acknowledgement and response handling taught by the ’565 patent into the core method of claim 9 to confirm delivery status and recipient interaction, as such functionality is a routine and predictable feature of messaging systems. Accordingly, claim 1 is an obvious variation of claim 9 of the ’565 patent.
Claim 8 recites computer-readable instructions implementing the operations of claim 1, including addressless cross-domain transmission, intended-target identification, response handling, and acknowledgement communication.
Claim 14 of the ’565 patent recites computer-readable instructions for detecting an addressless request from a source device to multiple destinations in another domain; identifying intended targets discoverable within a network; generating and transmitting a transmission without endpoint addresses; receiving responses; and communicating device and read acknowledgements to the source device.
The ’565 patent media claim expressly teaches discoverability, plural responses, and device and read acknowledgements, all of which are relied upon by the applicant as distinguishing features. Claim 8 merely applies these teachings to a single-destination context, which would have been an obvious and routine design choice. Accordingly, claim 8 is an obvious variation of claim 14 of the ’565 patent.
Claim 15 recites a system configured to detect an addressless request, identify an intended target, generate and transmit a transmission without an endpoint address, and communicate acknowledgements to a source device based on responses.
Claim 1 of the ’565 patent recites a computer system configured to detect an addressless request, determine role association, identify an intended target, generate and transmit a transmission without an endpoint address, detect updates to clinically relevant information, and communicate updated transmissions.
The ’565 patent teaches the same system-level architecture for addressless, role-based, cross-domain communication. The additional acknowledgement handling recited in claim 15 is explicitly taught by the ’565 patent’s dependent method and media claims and would have been an obvious system-level inclusion. Claim 15 is therefore an obvious variation of claim 1 of the ’565 patent.
Claims 2, 9, and 16: These claims recite request origination from a first domain and additional responses from the intended target. The ’565 patent teaches cross-domain origination (claims 2 and 13) and response handling (claims 10-11). These limitations do not render the claims patentably distinct.
Claims 3, 10, and 17: These claims recite that the first and second domains differ. The ’565 patent expressly teaches separate domains. These limitations are taught and do not distinguish the claims.
Claims 4-5, 11-12, and 18-19: These claims recite role determination and role-based intended-target identification. The ’565 patent expressly teaches role-based destination evaluation and intended-target identification in its independent claims. These limitations are taught.
Claims 6, 13, and 20: These claims recite detecting presence information associated with the intended target. The ’565 patent expressly teaches presence detection (claims 3 and 16). These limitations are directly taught and do not render the claims patentably distinct.
Claims 7 and 14: These claims recite network discoverability and disconnected domains. The ’565 patent expressly teaches network discoverability (claim 5) and disconnected domains (claim 4). These limitations are taught.
Claims 1-20 are not identical to the claims of the ’565 patent but are not patentably distinct. The ’565 patent expressly discloses addressless, role-based, cross-domain medical messaging with discoverability, presence detection, response handling, and acknowledgement communication. The differences between the claims represent obvious variations of the same invention. Accordingly, claims 1-20 are rejected under the doctrine of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Under step 1, the analysis is based on MPEP 2106.03, and claims 1-7 are drawn to a method, claims 8-14 are drawn to a non-transitory media, and claims 15-20 are drawn to a system. Thus, each claim, on its face, is directed to one of the statutory categories (i.e., useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter) of 35 U.S.C. §101.
Step 2A Prong One
Claim 1 recites as a whole a method of organizing human activity (i.e., commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations); or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)) because the claim recites a method that allows users to detect, a request to transmit a message to a destination without an endpoint address for the destination; identify an intended target associated with the destination, generate a transmission for the intended target without the endpoint address; and electronically communicate the transmission to the intended target . This is a method of managing and coordinating communications and interactions between people within an organizational setting. The mere nominal recitation of a generic one or more hardware processors associated with a control server does not take the claim out of the methods of organizing human activity. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Alternatively, claim 1 recites the limitation of detecting a request to transmit a message to a destination, identifying an intended target associated with the destination, and based on receiving at least a first response an acknowledgement selected from a group comprising at least a device acknowledgement and a read acknowledgement. These limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover performance of the limitation in the mind or by using a pen and paper. But for the “via one or more hardware processors associated with a control server” language, the claim encompasses a user simply receiving a request to send a message determining who the message should be best to, and confirming whether the message has been received or read in their mind or by using a pen and paper. The mere nominal recitation of via one or more hardware processors associated with a control server does not take the claim limitation out of the mental processes grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mental process which is an abstract idea.
Independent claims 8 and 15 recite identical or nearly identical steps with respect to claim 1 (and therefore also recite limitations that fall within this subject matter grouping of abstract ideas), and these claims are therefore determined to recite an abstract idea under the same analysis.
Under Step 2A Prong Two
The claimed limitations, as per method claim 1, include the steps of:
detecting, via one or more hardware processors associated with a control server and further associated with a medical environment, a request (a) from a source device within a first domain (b) to transmit a message to a destination associated with a second domain (c) without an endpoint address for the destination;
identifying an intended target associated with the destination, wherein one or both of the destination and the intended target are discoverable within a network that is associated with the medical environment and that includes the second domain;
generating a transmission for the intended target without the endpoint address;
electronically communicating the transmission to the intended target within the second domain; and
based on receiving at least a first response, of a plurality of responses, associated with the transmission: electronically communicating, to the source device, an acknowledgement selected from a group comprising at least a device acknowledgement and a read acknowledgement.
Examiner Note: underlined elements indicate additional elements of the claimed invention identified as performing the steps of the claimed invention.
The judicial exception expressed in claim 1 is not integrated into a practical application. The claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of managing and coordinating communications and interactions between people based on destinations or roles in a computer environment. The claimed computer components (i.e., one or more hardware processors associated with a control server, and a source device) are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform an existing process of organizing human communications. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Accordingly, alone and in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The judicial exception expressed in claim 1 is not integrated into a practical application. The abstract idea is merely carried out in a technical environment or field (i.e., a networked medical messaging environment involving multiple domains), however fails to contain meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). The additional elements that are carried out in a technical environment includes further associated with a medical environment; associated with a second domain; wherein one or both of the destination and the intended target are discoverable within a network that is associated with the medical environment and that includes the second domain. Accordingly, alone and in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The judicial exception expressed in claim 1 is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the additional element of based on receiving at least a first response, of a plurality of responses, associated with the transmission: electronically communicating, an acknowledgement selected from a group comprising at least a device acknowledgement and a read acknowledgement. This limitation is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of confirming receipt or review of communication), and amounts to merely insignificant application, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Accordingly, even in combination, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Therefore, under step 2A, the claims are directed to the abstract idea, and require further analysis under Step 2B.
Under step 2B
Claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed with respect to Step 2A, the claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of managing and coordinating communications and interactions between people based on destinations or roles in a computer environment. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea.
Claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed with respect to Step 2A, the abstract idea is merely carried out in a technical environment or field, however fails to contain meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea.
For claim 1, under step 2B, the additional elements of based on receiving at least a first response, of a plurality of responses, associated with the transmission: electronically communicating, an acknowledgement selected from a group comprising at least a device acknowledgement and a read acknowledgement has been evaluated. As noted in In re Brown, 645 Fed. App'x 1014, 1016-1017 (Fed. Cir. 2016), merely transmitting information in response to user action represents an insignificant application of the underlying abstract idea, as such activity amounts to routine post solution notification and does not impose any meaningful limitation or add any technological improvement. Therefore, the claim does not recite an inventive concept and is not patent eligible.
Claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 recite the additional element of from the source device in the first domain (claims 2, 9, and 16), the second domain (claims 2-3, 9-10, and 16-17), via the one or more hardware processors (claims 4-6, 11-13, and 18-20), the network includes the first domain and the second domain (claims 7 and 14), wherein the destination is discoverable within the network (claims 7 and 14) . However, this additional element amounts to implementing an abstract idea on a generic computing device or mere linking to a particular environment. As such, these additional elements, when considered individually or in combination with the prior devices, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Thus, as the dependent claims remain directed to a judicial exception, and as the additional elements of the claims do not amount to significantly more, the dependent claims are not patent eligible.
Therefore, the claims here fail to contain any additional element(s) or combination of additional elements that can be considered as significantly more and the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for lacking eligible subject matter.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hartman et al. (U.S. Patent 9235547 B1), referred to hereinafter as Hartman, in view of Dorsey et al. (U.S. Patent 9577966 B1), referred to hereinafter as Dorsey.
Regarding claim 1, Hartman teaches a computer-implemented method (Hartman, Col. 12, lines, 58-62, “The above exemplary messaging system may implement a message routing/delivery method as generally illustrated in FIG. 4 (0400), wherein the messaging method comprises the following steps:”), comprising:
detecting, via one or more hardware processors associated with a control server and further associated with a medical environment, a request (a) from a source device within a first domain (b) to transmit a message to a destination associated with a second domain (c) without an endpoint address for the destination (Hartman, Col. 10, lines 22-36, “The most general system overview of the present invention can be understood by the generalized system block structure illustrated in FIG. 1 (0100). In this generalized system structure, the message originator (0110) interfaces with a message entry interface (0101) under control of a communication process (0102) managed on a communication server (0103) that typically operates under control of software derived from a computer-readable medium (0104). Once a message has been entered by the message originator (0110) into the message entry interface (0101), it is then communicated using a communications network (0105) under control of the communications process (0102) and associated communications server (0103) to a remote client presentation interface (0106) for review/acceptance by a message recipient (0111).”);
identifying an intended target associated with the destination, wherein one or both of the destination and the intended target are discoverable within a network that is associated with the medical environment and that includes the second domain (Hartman, Col. 3, lines 34-43, “The present invention utilizes a “dead man” message switching methodology to ensure that messages sent to a particular recipient are indeed reviewed by the recipient. A given message is associated with a hierarchical target message address list that identifies a number of individuals and/or organizations that will sequentially receive the message if a higher priority individual on the list fails to respond to the message within a predetermined amount of time.”);
electronically communicating the transmission to the intended target within the second domain (Hartman, Col. 3, lines 34-43, “The present invention utilizes a “dead man” message switching methodology to ensure that messages sent to a particular recipient are indeed reviewed by the recipient. A given message is associated with a hierarchical target message address list that identifies a number of individuals and/or organizations that will sequentially receive the message if a higher priority individual on the list fails to respond to the message within a predetermined amount of time.”); and
based on receiving at least a first response, of a plurality of responses, associated with the transmission: electronically communicating, to the source device, an acknowledgement selected from a group comprising at least a device acknowledgement and a read acknowledgement (Hartman, Col. 9, lines 42-50, “The present invention in many preferred embodiments assumes that the message delivery thread hierarchy is fully defined such that there is never a “message delivery failure” in the context of a transmitted message never reaching and being acknowledged by at least one message recipient. However, some alternative embodiments may utilize message hierarchy threads that permit “dead” messages to be acknowledged as “undeliverable” if none of the targeted message recipients are available or capable of acknowledging the message.”).
Hartman fails to explicitly teach generating a transmission for the intended target without the endpoint address.
Dorsey teaches generating a transmission for the intended target without the endpoint address (Dorsey, Col. 1, lines 66-67, and Col. 2, lines 1-18, “Disclosed is a system (and/or method) that includes, for example, a routing engine that receives a message from any of various entry points, including e-mail, short message service (SMS), instant messenger (IM), web input, and application programming interface (API) function calls. The routing engine determines the identities of the destination users to receive the message, possibly by expanding destination groups. The routing engine determines the endpoints on which the destination users wish to receive the message, the endpoints can be one or more of e-mail, SMS, IM, web input, and API function calls. The destination endpoints are independent of the source entry points, and the message sender does not need to have knowledge of the endpoints, or endpoint-specific user addresses. A single user can receive a message at multiple endpoints. The routing engine applies rules to the message to determine the actual destination endpoints for each user, translates the message as appropriate for each endpoint, and transmits the message to the endpoints, where the message is delivered to the destination user.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the messaging system of Hartman to incorporate the endpoint independent routing techniques taught by Dorsey. Hartman discloses a messaging system that routes messages to intended recipients using hierarchical target lists and escalation logic, but does not describe that the message originator may transmit a message without knowledge of endpoint specific user addresses. Dorsey teaches a routing engine in which a message sender does not need to have knowledge of destination endpoints or endpoint specific user addresses, as the routing engine determines the appropriate endpoints for each destination user and transmits the message accordingly. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine these teachings in order to improve the flexibility of Hartman’s messaging system by allowing messages to be generated and routed to intended targets without requiring the sender to specify endpoint addresses, specifically in environments involving multiple recipient endpoints. This combination would have involved the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions and would have yielded no more than predictable results.
Regarding claim 2, Hartman and Dorsey teach the invention in claim 1, as discussed above, and further teach wherein the request originates from the source device in the first domain and does not indicate the endpoint address of the destination associated with the second domain, and wherein a second response is electronically communicated from the intended target to the source device (Hartman, Col. 10, lines 22-36, “The most general system overview of the present invention can be understood by the generalized system block structure illustrated in FIG. 1 (0100). In this generalized system structure, the message originator (0110) interfaces with a message entry interface (0101) under control of a communication process (0102) managed on a communication server (0103) that typically operates under control of software derived from a computer-readable medium (0104). Once a message has been entered by the message originator (0110) into the message entry interface (0101), it is then communicated using a communications network (0105) under control of the communications process (0102) and associated communications server (0103) to a remote client presentation interface (0106) for review/acceptance by a message recipient (0111).” and Hartman, Col. 9, lines 42-50, “The present invention in many preferred embodiments assumes that the message delivery thread hierarchy is fully defined such that there is never a “message delivery failure” in the context of a transmitted message never reaching and being acknowledged by at least one message recipient. However, some alternative embodiments may utilize message hierarchy threads that permit “dead” messages to be acknowledged as “undeliverable” if none of the targeted message recipients are available or capable of acknowledging the message.”, and
Dorsey, Col. 1, lines 66-67, and Col. 2, lines 1-18, “Disclosed is a system (and/or method) that includes, for example, a routing engine that receives a message from any of various entry points, including e-mail, short message service (SMS), instant messenger (IM), web input, and application programming interface (API) function calls. The routing engine determines the identities of the destination users to receive the message, possibly by expanding destination groups. The routing engine determines the endpoints on which the destination users wish to receive the message, the endpoints can be one or more of e-mail, SMS, IM, web input, and API function calls. The destination endpoints are independent of the source entry points, and the message sender does not need to have knowledge of the endpoints, or endpoint-specific user addresses. A single user can receive a message at multiple endpoints. The routing engine applies rules to the message to determine the actual destination endpoints for each user, translates the message as appropriate for each endpoint, and transmits the message to the endpoints, where the message is delivered to the destination user.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the messaging system of Hartman to incorporate the endpoint independent routing taught by Dorsey. Hartman discloses a centralized messaging system in which a message originator submits a message to a communication server and intended recipients may respond, with these responses communicated back to the message originator. Dorsey teaches that a message sender need not specify endpoint specific user addresses, as a routing engine determines appropriate endpoints for each destination user. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine these teachings to allow messages in Hartman to originate without indicating endpoint addresses while still enabling recipient responses, thereby improving flexibility of the messaging system. This combination represents the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions.
Regarding claim 3, Hartman and Dorsey teach the invention in claim 1, as discussed above, and further teach wherein the second domain differs from the first domain, and wherein the destination is within the second domain (Hartman, Col. 3, lines 34-43, “The present invention utilizes a “dead man” message switching methodology to ensure that messages sent to a particular recipient are indeed reviewed by the recipient. A given message is associated with a hierarchical target message address list that identifies a number of individuals and/or organizations that will sequentially receive the message if a higher priority individual on the list fails to respond to the message within a predetermined amount of time.”, and Hartman, Col. 14, lines 48-53, “This scenario might be appropriate in situations where the message must be acted on by a particular operating group within the company, but the originator of the message realizes that a completely different operating group may also need to be notified of the message contents and act appropriately within their individual operating group.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to route messages between different organizational groupings, as taught by Hartman. Hartman discloses routing messages to individuals and organizations associated with different operating groups, including scenarios in which a message originating from one group is delivered to recipients in a different operating group. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood such operating groups and organizations to correspond to different domains, and routing a message to a destination within a different domain would have been a predictable implementation of Hartman’s messaging system. Accordingly, the claimed limitation that the second domain differs from the first domain and that the destination is within the second domain would have been obvious.
Regarding claim 4, Hartman and Dorsey teach the invention in claim 1, as discussed above, and further teach further comprising determining, via the one or more hardware processors, whether the destination is associated with a role (Hartman, Col. 19, lines 50-61, “Under normal circumstances, the present invention processes messages by sequentially transmitting the message to addresses contained in a hierarchical target message address list. After each transmission, a predefined amount of time is allocated to determine if a response to the message has been received by the host message processor. If no response message is received (or if the response indicates that the message should be passed thru or passed around) the next address in the hierarchical target message address list is selected as the target for the message. This process continues until a successful response/action message is received from a targeted system interface”, and Hartman, Col. 26, lines 53-67, and Col. 27, lines 1-2, “A typical example of a message delivery architecture is illustrated in FIG. 23 (2300), wherein a Severity+message (2301) is generated to indicate a FIRE AND MAN DOWN (2302). This message is broadcast (in parallel transmission mode) to 911 FIRE (2303), 911 RESCUE (2304), INTERNAL SECURITY (2305), HR PUBLIC RELATIONS (2306), and CONTINUING EXCELLENCE ACCIDENT INVESTIGATION (2307). Within these groups, serial cascade message transmission is directed towards individual chains of recipients within the various organizations (CORPORATE DUTY OFFICER (2308), VP OPS (2309); HR PUBLIC RELATIONS ACTION TEAM (2310), VP FINANCE (2311); ACCIDENT INVESTIGATION TEAM (2312), VP SAFETY (2313)). In this manner the message is properly broadcast to both the BREADTH and DEPTH necessary to address the critical situation, without necessarily waiting on any particular message recipient to act independently of the remaining message recipients.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to determine whether a message destination is associated with a role or group, as taught by Hartman. Hartman discloses routing messages to organizational groups and cascading those messages to individual recipients within those groups, which requires identifying whether a destination corresponds to a group level role or an individual recipient. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to include such a determination in order to properly route and escalate messages within a messaging system, and doing this would have involved the predictable use of prior art messaging techniques. Accordingly, the claimed limitation would have been obvious.
Regarding claim 5, Hartman and Dorsey teach the invention in claim 4, as discussed above, and further teach wherein the intended target is identified, via the one or more hardware processors, based on the determination that the destination is associated with the role (Hartman, Col. 19, lines 50-61, “Under normal circumstances, the present invention processes messages by sequentially transmitting the message to addresses contained in a hierarchical target message address list. After each transmission, a predefined amount of time is allocated to determine if a response to the message has been received by the host message processor. If no response message is received (or if the response indicates that the message should be passed thru or passed around) the next address in the hierarchical target message address list is selected as the target for the message. This process continues until a successful response/action message is received from a targeted system interface”, and Hartman, Col. 26, lines 53-67, and Col. 27, lines 1-2, “A typical example of a message delivery architecture is illustrated in FIG. 23 (2300), wherein a Severity+message (2301) is generated to indicate a FIRE AND MAN DOWN (2302). This message is broadcast (in parallel transmission mode) to 911 FIRE (2303), 911 RESCUE (2304), INTERNAL SECURITY (2305), HR PUBLIC RELATIONS (2306), and CONTINUING EXCELLENCE ACCIDENT INVESTIGATION (2307). Within these groups, serial cascade message transmission is directed towards individual chains of recipients within the various organizations (CORPORATE DUTY OFFICER (2308), VP OPS (2309); HR PUBLIC RELATIONS ACTION TEAM (2310), VP FINANCE (2311); ACCIDENT INVESTIGATION TEAM (2312), VP SAFETY (2313)). In this manner the message is properly broadcast to both the BREADTH and DEPTH necessary to address the critical situation, without necessarily waiting on any particular message recipient to act independently of the remaining message recipients.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to identify an intended target based on a determination that a message destination is associated with a role, as taught by Hartman. Hartman discloses routing messages to role or group based destinations and subsequently cascading those messages to individual recipients within the associated groups, thereby selecting an intended target as a result of the role association. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to identify an intended target in this manner in order to ensure proper message delivery and escalation within a messaging system, and doing this would have involved the predictable use of known messaging techniques. Accordingly, the claimed limitation would have been obvious.
Regarding claim 6, Hartman and Dorsey teach the invention in claim 1, as discussed above, and further teach further comprising detecting, via the one or more hardware processors, presence information associated with the intended target prior to the communication of the transmission (Hartman, Col. 19, lines 50-61, “Under normal circumstances, the present invention processes messages by sequentially transmitting the message to addresses contained in a hierarchical target message address list. After each transmission, a predefined amount of time is allocated to determine if a response to the message has been received by the host message processor. If no response message is received (or if the response indicates that the message should be passed thru or passed around) the next address in the hierarchical target message address list is selected as the target for the message. This process continues until a successful response/action message is received from a targeted system interface”, and Hartman, Col. 34, lines 60-67, and Col. 35, lines 1-14, “(3) The user will be given the option of parallel (broadcast) and/or cascade (serial sequential) message delivery (2703); (4) If Parallel Messaging is selected, the primary recipients and alternate recipients for that message stop can be selected from Client Directory or entered manually. Once the message has been created the user will proceed to TEST (See below) (2704); (5) If Cascade Messaging is selected, the primary recipients and alternate recipients for the message stops can be selected from Client Directory or entered manually. The time to auto forward for each message stop can be entered for each stop. Once the message has been created the user will proceed to TEST (See below) (2705); (6) If a combination of both Parallel and Cascade: The user will first be prompted to complete the options for the Parallel Message, then the Cascade Message options, until all messages stops are entered (2706); (7) Test runs an internal validation algorithm to validate that all selected recipients are valid and available/online with the test results displayed for inspection and review (2707).”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to detect presence information associated with an intended message recipient prior to transmitting a message, as taught by Hartman. Hartman discloses validating whether selected recipients are available or online before message delivery and using such availability information in message routing. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to include such detection in order to avoid transmitting messages to unavailable recipients and to improve message delivery reliability, and doing this would have involved the predictable use of known messaging techniques. Accordingly, the claimed limitation would have been obvious.
Regarding claim 7, Hartman and Dorsey teach the invention in claim 1, as discussed above, and further teach wherein the network includes the first domain and the second domain, wherein the second domain is disconnected from the first domain, and wherein the destination is discoverable within the network (Hartman, Col. 12, lines 26-30, “An alternate generalized system overview of the present invention is also depicted in FIG. 3 (0300), wherein the messaging system interfaces with a message originator (0301) that interacts with a software user interface (0302) running under control of a computer system (0303) with application software contained on a non-transitory computer readable medium (0304). The user interface (0302) collects message content and delivery information from the message originator (0301) and processes this via a message routing and delivery process (0305) through a communications network (0306) to a remote messaging hardware interface (0307). The messaging hardware interface (0307) presents the message information to one or more message recipients (0311, 0321, 0329) that may be configured in a linear vector (0311) or nested (0321, 0329) configuration.” and Hartman, Col. 26, lines 53-67, and Col. 27, lines 1-2, “A typical example of a message delivery architecture is illustrated in FIG. 23 (2300), wherein a Severity+message (2301) is generated to indicate a FIRE AND MAN DOWN (2302). This message is broadcast (in parallel transmission mode) to 911 FIRE (2303), 911 RESCUE (2304), INTERNAL SECURITY (2305), HR PUBLIC RELATIONS (2306), and CONTINUING EXCELLENCE ACCIDENT INVESTIGATION (2307). Within these groups, serial cascade message transmission is directed towards individual chains of recipients within the various organizations (CORPORATE DUTY OFFICER (2308), VP OPS (2309); HR PUBLIC RELATIONS ACTION TEAM (2310), VP FINANCE (2311); ACCIDENT INVESTIGATION TEAM (2312), VP SAFETY (2313)). In this manner the message is properly broadcast to both the BREADTH and DEPTH necessary to address the critical situation, without necessarily waiting on any particular message recipient to act independently of the remaining message recipients.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to route messages across different, logically distinct domains within a network, as taught by Hartman. Hartman discloses centralized message routing to recipients organized in separate organizations and nested recipient groups, which do not directly communicate with one another but are reachable through the messaging network, and further teaches identifying destinations within those groups via hierarchical routing. Implementing such routing to communicate with discoverable destinations across disconnected domains would have been a predictable use of known messaging techniques. Accordingly, the claimed limitation would have been obvious.
Claims 8-14 are analogous to claims 1-7, thus claim 8-14 are similarly analyzed and rejected in a manner consistent with the rejection of claims 1-7.
Claims 15-20 are analogous to claims 1-6, thus claim 15-20 are similarly analyzed and rejected in a manner consistent with the rejection of claims 1-6.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Fernandez et al. (U.S. Patent Publication 2013/0232209 A1) teaches a method and system for managing communications by storing permitted user relationships in a name directory and periodically transmitting that directory to authorized users via a messaging server.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYRA R LAGOY whose telephone number is (703)756-1773. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 am - 5:00 pm 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, Kambiz Abdi can be reached at (571)272-6702. 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.
/K.R.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3685
/KAMBIZ ABDI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3685