Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 7/17/2025 and 10/28/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-17 of US Pat. 12,273,310. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are directed to substantially similar methods, systems, and/or mediums, for example contrast claim 1 with claim 1 ‘310:
Instant Claim 1
‘310 claim 1
An intelligent delivery system comprising:
An intelligent delivery system comprising:
an intelligent delivery server coupled to a plurality of output connectors, wherein the intelligent delivery server is configured to execute a self-learning machine learning engine trained to select an output connector from the plurality of output connectors for delivery of a communication;
an intelligent delivery server configured to execute a self-learning machine learning engine which is trained to identify one of a plurality of output connectors for delivery of a communication based on received context information, intended recipient information, and previously collected event information indicating a delivery of a previous communication, wherein the plurality of output connectors are coupled to the intelligent delivery server;
one or more input connectors coupled to the intelligent delivery server, wherein the one or more input connectors coupled to the intelligent delivery server receive input data for the communication, wherein the received input data comprises:
intended recipient information; and
context information;
one or more input connectors coupled to the intelligent delivery server, wherein the one or more input connectors coupled to the intelligent delivery server receive input data for the communication, wherein the received input data comprises:
intended recipient information; and
context information;
a flow model configured to:
access collected event information using the received input data;
generate a communication flow for the communication using the received input data, wherein a type of communication for the communication is determined by the received input data;
a flow model configured to:
access stored information of the previously collected event information based on the received input data;
generate a communication flow for a communication using the received input data, wherein a type of communication is determined by the received input data;
receive a modification from the user to the flow model during execution of the flow model;
dynamically modify the communication flow based on the medication from the user, wherein the modifying is during execution of the flow model;
wherein the flow model is further configured to:
receive, in real-time, user input modifying the flow model during execution of the flow model, and in response to the real-time user input, dynamically modify the communication flow during execution of the flow model;
the intelligent delivery server selecting output connector from the plurality of output connectors for delivery of the communication based on:
the received input data,
the collected event information, and the type of communication;
wherein the intelligent delivery server selects a different one of the plurality of output connectors for delivery of the communication based on
the type of communication,
context information associated with the communication, and
the real-time user input modifying the flow model; and
wherein the intelligent delivery server routes the communication to the selected output connector for delivery of the communication.
route, by the intelligent delivery server the communication to the selected different one of the plurality of output connector for delivery of the communication.
That is, the differences between the claims would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in that the scope of the instant invention overlaps with the scope of the patent. Further, instant claims 2-20, correspond similarly to subject matter of ‘310 claims 1-7. Therefore, if a patent were to be granted, it may result in an improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” of the subject matter and may lead to possible harassment by multiple assignees.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 recites, “dynamically modify the communication flow based on the medication from the user,” but should recite, “modification.” Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 1-7 are directed systems that when interpreted in light of the specification may read on software alone which is non-statutory. In order to comply, the claimed systems must explicitly comprise hardware (e.g. a processor, memory) so they may not be reasonably be interpreted as software alone.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-4, 8-11, and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsiao et al (US Pub. No. 2012/0124146), hereafter, “Hsaio,” in view of Popelka et al (US Pub. No. 2023/0096084), hereafter, “Popelka.”
As to claim 1, Hsiao discloses an intelligent delivery system (Abstract) comprising:
an intelligent delivery server coupled to a plurality of output connectors, wherein the intelligent delivery server is configured to execute a self-learning machine learning engine trained to select an output connector from the plurality of output connectors for delivery of a communication (Fig. 1, Messaging Server 101, reading on “intelligent delivery server,” Fig. 2, 204 reading on “output connectors,” and [0021]-[0022], particularly, “In some embodiments, the messaging module 120 may select the messaging channels by applying a set of policy rules or a predictive machine learned model to determine the proper messaging channels.”);
one or more input connectors coupled to the intelligent delivery server, wherein the one or more input connectors coupled to the intelligent delivery server receive input data for the communication (Fig. 2, labels 202 and 210), wherein the received input data comprises:
intended recipient information (Fig. 2, labels 202, 210 and [0025], “Using one or more informational signals 210 that provide, for example, information about the message recipient, the messaging module selects one or more outgoing messaging channels 204 for delivering the message.”); and
context information ([0031]-[0039], particularly, “The messaging module 120 may consider different signals that guide the selection of the messaging channels, for example, signals that are representative of (1) the recipient's previous messaging activities, (2) the recipient's current status, (3) attributes of the message itself, and (4) other signals.”);
a flow model (Figs. 3 and 5; [0028]) configured to:
access collected event information using the received input data ([0029]-[0031], “The message recipient can be determined, for example, from metadata associated with the message that is matched to information in the user datastore 110 to identify a given user. In other embodiments, the messaging module 120 determines the intended recipient by receiving identifying information for the message recipient from the client 180 before the message itself is received… The messaging module 120 may consider different signals that guide the selection of the messaging channels, for example, signals that are representative of (1) the recipient's previous messaging activities, (2) the recipient's current status, (3) attributes of the message itself, and (4) other signals.”);
generate a communication flow for the communication using the received input data, wherein a type of communication for the communication is determined by the received input data ([0030]-[0031], particularly, “In step 315, the messaging module 120 selects one or more delivery channels for delivering messages to the message recipient. In one embodiment, several different message channels are available for delivering messages. For a given user, the selection module 132 selects one or more channels by applying a set of policy rules that take into account various signals. In one embodiment, the policy rules are configured as a decision tree with pre-determined paths that lead to the conclusion of which message channels to select.”);
receive a modification to the flow model during execution of the flow model (Fig. 5, [0064]-[0067], particularly, “As multiple messaging channels may be available for delivering the message, the messaging module selects from among the different messaging channels using various information signals, as previously described in conjunction with FIGS. 2 and 3… Subsequently, the sender enters the message and provides it to the messaging module. The messaging module 120 receives (not shown) the message from the sender and delivers the message to the recipient via the selected channel(s). As the recipient replies and the conversation between the two users progresses, the messaging module 120 continuously updates the visual indicators to correspond to the selected messaging channels if there is a change in the selected messaging channels (i.e., new channels are selected or old channels are de-selected). For example, the last channel used by the recipient to reply to the message may be selected by the messaging module 120 to be the appropriate delivery channel.”);
dynamically modify the communication flow during execution of the flow model ([0064]-[0067], particularly, “As new messages are sent and received, they are added to the thread and displayed in the text box 420 as a single thread even as the messaging channels for delivering the message change. For example, the recipient may send a reply message via one messaging channel (e.g., SMS), and then later send another reply message via a different messaging channel (e.g., web-chat). Both messages will be provided for display as part of the same thread or conversation in the text box 420. The sender is thus provided with a single interface that seamlessly transitions between different messaging channels automatically without interrupting the flow of the conversation.”);
the intelligent delivery server selecting output connector from the plurality of output connectors for delivery of the communication based on:
the received input data (Fig. 2, [0029]-[0031], particularly, “In step 310, the messaging module 120 determines the user that is the message recipient. The message recipient can be determined, for example, from metadata associated with the message that is matched to information in the user datastore 110 to identify a given user. In other embodiments, the messaging module 120 determines the intended recipient by receiving identifying information for the message recipient from the client 180 before the message itself is received.”),
the collected event information (Fig. 2, [0029]-[0031], particularly, “The messaging module 120 may consider different signals that guide the selection of the messaging channels, for example, signals that are representative of (1) the recipient's previous messaging activities, (2) the recipient's current status, (3) attributes of the message itself, and (4) other signals.”) and
the type of communication (Fig. 2, [0021]-[0022],[0029]-[0031], and [0040]-[0042])
wherein the intelligent delivery server routes the communication to the selected output connector for delivery of the communication ([0022]-[0024]).
However, Hsiao does not explicitly disclose receive a modification from the user to the flow model during execution of the flow model; and therefore,
dynamically modify the communication flow based on the medication from the user, wherein the modifying is during execution of the flow model.
But, Popelka discloses receive a modification from a user to a flow model during execution of the flow model (Fig. 4, labels 430, 435 and [0052], particularly, “At 435, the communication process flow management service 405 may receive, from the communication platform 410, a request comprising an indication of an action associated with a communication process flow that controls electronic communications between a tenant of a multitenant system and a set of users corresponding to the tenant. The request may be an activate request, pause request, approval of an event, an undo request, etc.”);
dynamically modify the communication flow based on the medication from the user, wherein the modifying is during execution of the flow model (Fig. 4, label 445, and [0055], particularly, “At 445, the communication process flow management service 445 may perform, based at least in part on authenticating the request, the action at the communication process flow. The action may change a schedule associated with the electronic communications controlled by the communication process flow. For example, if the request is an activate request, the communication process flow is activated such that electronic communications are to be transmitted to the set of users according to the actions included in the communication process flow.”).
Therefore it would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Hsiao and Popelka in order to give users greater direct control over the system thereby increasing user satisfaction.
As to claims 8 and 16, they are rejected by a similar rationale by that set forth in claim 1’s rejection.
As to claims 2 and 9, the teachings of Hsiao and Popelka as combined by the same reasons set forth in claim 1’s rejection further disclose the context information comprises the time of day at which the communication is to be delivered via the output connector (Hsiao, [0031]-[0039]).
As to claims 3, 10, and 17, the teachings of Hsiao and Popelka as combined by the same reasons set forth in claim 1’s rejection further disclose the type of communication is one of an invoice, a marketing offer, a service notification, or a transactional document (Hsiao, [0002]).
As to claims 4, 11, and 18, the teachings of Hsiao and Popelka as combined by the same reasons set forth in claim 1’s rejection further disclose the self-learning machine learning engine is trained using historical data, the historical data comprising: a plurality of past communications, past context information describing a past communication, past recipient information describing an intended past recipient, and past delivery outcomes associated with the plurality of past communications (Hsiao, [0031]-[0039]).
Claims 6, 7, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsiaoin view of Popelka and what was well known in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application.
As to claims 6 and 14, the teachings of Hsiao and Popelka disclose the parent claim but do not disclose the self-learning machine learning engine is a neural network. However, Official Notice is taken (see MPEP 2144.03) that neural network self-learning machine learning engines were well known and common in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application to combine that fact with the teachings of Hsiao and Popelka in order to provide a known and reliable machine learning engine that can produce useful results.
As to claims 7 and 15, the teachings of Hsiao and Popelka disclose the parent claim but do not disclose the intended recipient information comprises demographic data of the intended recipient. However, Official Notice is taken (see MPEP 2144.03) using demographic data of an intended recipient was well known and common in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application to combine that fact with the teachings of Hsiao and Popelka in order to provide more information to the system about users so as to allow the system to make better decisions.
Claims 5, 12, 13, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsiao in view of Popelka and Cai et al (US Pub. No. 2010/0323725), hereafter, “Cai.”
As to claims 5, 12, and 20, the teachings of Hsiao and Popelka as combined by the same reasons set forth in claim 1’s rejection further disclose the flow model is further configured to: initiate delivery of the communication via the selected output connector (Hsiao, [0022]-[0024]) but do not disclose receive an indication that the delivery of the communication via the selected output connector has failed; and in response to receiving the indication of failure, receive a subsequent modification from the user for the flow model, wherein the subsequent modification comprises changing a delay time within the communication flow.
However, Cai discloses receive an indication that a delivery of a communication via a selected output connector has failed; and in response to receiving the indication of failure, receive a subsequent modification from the user for the flow model, wherein the subsequent modification comprises changing a delay time within the communication flow (Fig. 2 and [0029], particularly, “The individualized retry configuration may define a number (e.g., maximum) of subsequent retry attempts for this specific message, and may also define one or more time intervals between the retry attempts for this specific message.”)
Therefore, it would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Hsiao and Popelka with Cai in order account for communication delivery failures while preserving the functionality to still eventually delivery the communication to users thus increasing user satisfaction.
As to claims 13 and 19, the teachings of Hsiao and Popelka disclose the parent claim but do not disclose the modification from the user comprises changing a parameter within the communication flow, and wherein the parameter is a delay time between communication attempts.
However, Cai discloses a modification from a user comprises changing a parameter within the communication flow, and wherein the parameter is a delay time between communication attempts (Fig. 2 and [0029], particularly, “The individualized retry configuration may define a number (e.g., maximum) of subsequent retry attempts for this specific message, and may also define one or more time intervals between the retry attempts for this specific message.”)
Therefore, it would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Hsiao and Popelka with Cai in order account for communication delivery failures while preserving the functionality to still eventually delivery the communication to users thus increasing user satisfaction.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS J DAILEY whose telephone number is (571)270-1246. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30am-6:00pm.
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, Umar Cheema can be reached on 571-270-3037. 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.
/THOMAS J DAILEY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2458
Prosecution Insights