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 .
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Double Patenting
The non-statutory 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 non-statutory 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 non-statutory 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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-20 rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-21 of U.S. Patent No. 12,301,531. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the subject matter claimed in the instant application is fully disclosed in the patent and is covered by the patent since the patent and the application are claiming common subject matter.
U.S. Patent No. 12,301,531
Instant Application: 19/180,989
An intelligent message routing system comprising:
An intelligent message routing system comprising:
one or more processors, one or more computer readable storage devices, and a plurality of program instructions stored on at least one of the one or more storage devices for execution by at least one of the one or more processors, when executed by the one or more processors, the plurality of program instructions cause the one or more processors to:
one or more processors, one or more computer readable storage devices, and a plurality of program instructions stored on at least one of the one or more storage devices for execution by at least one of the one or more processors, when executed by the one or more processors, the plurality of program instructions causes the one or more processors to:
receive a first message to be transmitted to a participant, wherein the first message includes a first conversation identifier signifying a first conversation with the participant;
receive a first message to be transmitted to a participant, wherein the first message includes a first conversation identifier signifying a first conversation with the participant;
determine a first channel to transmit the first message to the participant;
determine a first channel to transmit the first message to the participant;
transmit the first message over the first channel;
transmit the first message over the first channel; and
receive a second message to be transmitted to the participant, wherein the second message includes a second conversation identifier signifying a second conversation with the participant, wherein the first conversation and the second conversation are different, and wherein the first conversation and the second conversation are occurring substantially simultaneously;
determine a second channel to transmit the second message to the participant, wherein the first channel and the second channel are different;
transmit the second message over the second channel;
receive a response message from the participant via one of the first channel and the second channel; and
determine that the response message is associated with one of the first conversation and the second conversation based upon which channel the response message was received on.
lock the first channel to the first conversation until being unlocked.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 2, and 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Davenport et al. (U.S. 8,880,627) in view of Orr (U.S. 2015/0295873) and further in view of Graham et al. (U.S. 12,307,079).
Davenport and Orr were cited on the IDS filed 08 May 2025.
With respect to claim 1, Davenport teaches an intelligent message routing system comprising: one or more processors (Davenport, col. 15, lines 11-19), one or more computer readable storage devices, and a plurality of program instructions stored on at least one of the one or more storage devices for execution by at least one of the one or more processors, when executed by the one or more processors, the plurality of program instructions causes the one or more processors (Davenport, col. 15, lines 11-19) to: receive a first message to be transmitted to a participant (Davenport, Fig. 5, element 305; col. 5, lines 23-28); determine a first channel to transmit the first message to (Davenport, Fig. 5, element 315; col. 7, lines 41-50) the participant (Davenport, Fig. 5, element 325; col. 9, lines 4-29); transmit the first message over the first channel (Davenport, col. 9, lines 4-17).
Davenport does not explicitly teach wherein the first message includes a first conversation identifier signifying a first conversation with the participant; and to the first conversation.
However, Orr teaches wherein the first message includes a first conversation identifier (Orr, pages 2-3, paragraph 35 and page 4, paragraph 51) signifying a first conversation with the participant (Orr, Fig. 3, element 301A; pages 4-5, paragraph 60); and to the first conversation (Orr, Fig. 3, element 301A; pages 4-5, paragraph 60).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Davenport in view of Orr in order to enable wherein the first message includes a first conversation identifier signifying a first conversation with the participant; and to the first conversation. One would be motivated to do so in order to allow users to better categorise their conversations and make it easier for a user to resume a conversation about a particular topic at a later date, or to refer back to that conversation (Orr, page 6, paragraph 87).
The combination of Davenport and Orr does not explicitly teach lock the first channel and until being unlocked.
However, Graham teaches lock the first channel (Graham, col. 35, line 63 – col. 36, line 2) and until being unlocked (Graham, Fig. 5Q-2 and 5Q-3; col. 35, line 63 – col. 36, line 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Davenport and Orr in view of Graham in order to enable lock the first channel and until being unlocked. One would be motivated to do so in order to enable a simple way for a user to easily adjust the provision of notifications in different contexts (Graham, col. 1, lines 53-55).
With respect to claim 2, the combination of Davenport, Orr, and Graham teaches the invention described in claim 1, including the system wherein the plurality of program instructions further causes the one or more processors to: receive a second message to be transmitted to the participant (Orr, page 6, paragraph 85), wherein the second message includes a second conversation identifier (Orr, pages 2-3, paragraph 35 and page 4, paragraph 51) signifying a second conversation with the participant (Orr, Fig. 3, element 301B; page 6, paragraph 82), wherein the first conversation (Orr, page 2, paragraph 11) and the second conversation are different (Orr, page 2, paragraph 11), and wherein the first conversation (Orr, Fig. 3, element 301A; pages 4-5, paragraph 60) and the second conversation (Orr, Fig. 3, element 301B; page 6, paragraph 82) are occurring substantially simultaneously (Orr, page 3, paragraph 48); determine a second channel to transmit the second message to the participant (Davenport, col. 5, lines 8-11), wherein the first channel (SMS – see Davenport, col. 5, lines 8-11; and col. 9, lines 20-29) and the second channel are different (XMPP – see Davenport, col. 5, lines 8-11; and col. 9, lines 20-29); and transmit the second message over the second channel (Davenport, col. 9, lines 4-17).
The combination of references is made under the same rationale as claim 1 above.
With respect to claim 11, the combination of Davenport, Orr, and Graham teaches the invention described in claim 1, including the system wherein the plurality of program instructions further causes the one or more processors to: store one or more (Graham, col. 35, line 63 – col. 36, line 3) follow-up messages (Graham, Fig. 5N, elements 5072 and 5084; col. 33, lines 65-67) associated with the first channel (Davenport, Fig. 5, element 315; col. 7, lines 41-50); and transmit the one or more (Graham, col. 35, line 63 – col. 36, line 3) follow-up messages (Graham, Fig. 5N, elements 5072 and 5084; col. 33, lines 65-67) over the first channel (Davenport, Fig. 5, element 315; col. 7, lines 41-50) upon receiving an indication that (Graham, Fig. 5Q-2 and 5Q-3; col. 35, line 63 – col. 36, line 3) the first channel (Davenport, Fig. 5, element 315; col. 7, lines 41-50) is unlocked (Graham, Fig. 5Q-2 and 5Q-3; col. 35, line 63 – col. 36, line 3).
The combination of references is made under the same rationale as claim 1 above.
With respect to claim 12, the combination of Davenport, Orr, and Graham teaches the invention described in claim 11, including the system wherein the one or more (Graham, col. 35, line 63 – col. 36, line 3) follow-up messages (Graham, Fig. 5N, elements 5072 and 5084; col. 33, lines 65-67) are transmitted based upon a message schedule after receiving the indication that the first channel is unlocked (Graham, Fig. 5Q-2 and 5Q-3; col. 35, line 63 – col. 36, line 3).
The combination of references is made under the same rationale as claim 1 above.
With respect to claim 13, the combination of Davenport, Orr, and Graham teaches the invention described in claim 1, including the system wherein the plurality of program instructions further causes the one or more processors to: store a lock state of one or more channels associated with the participant (Graham, col. 35, line 63 – col. 36, line 3); upon receiving a second message (Graham, Fig. 5N, elements 5072 and 5084; col. 33, lines 65-67), determine an unlocked channel (Graham, Fig. 5Q-2 and 5Q-3; col. 35, line 63 – col. 36, line 3) of the one or more channels (SMS and XMPP – see Davenport, col. 5, lines 8-11; and col. 9, lines 20-29); and transmit the second message over the unlocked channel (Graham, Fig. 5Q-2 and 5Q-3; col. 35, line 63 – col. 36, line 3).
The combination of references is made under the same rationale as claim 1 above.
With respect to claim 14, the combination of Davenport, Orr, and Graham teaches the invention described in claim 1, including the system wherein the plurality of program instructions further causes the one or more processors to convert the first message into a first format for transmission on the first channel (Davenport, col. 5, lines 8-11; and col. 9, lines 20-29).
The combination of references is made under the same rationale as claim 1 above.
With respect to claim 15, the combination of Davenport, Orr, and Graham teaches the invention described in claim 1, including the system wherein the plurality of program instructions further causes the one or more processors to: store a plurality of transmission rules for (Davenport, col. 5, line 39 – col. 7, line 41) transmitting messages (Davenport, col. 2, line 57 – col. 3, line 4); and compare the first message (Davenport, col. 5, lines 31-38) to the plurality of transmission rules (Davenport, col. 5, line 39 – col. 7, line 41).
The combination of references is made under the same rationale as claim 1 above.
With respect to claim 16, the combination of Davenport, Orr, and Graham teaches the invention described in claim 15, including the system wherein the plurality of transmission rules includes a plurality of core rules, and wherein the plurality of program instructions further causes the one or more processors to determine whether to transmit the first message based on the plurality of core rules (Davenport, col. 5, line 39 – col. 7, line 41).
The combination of references is made under the same rationale as claim 1 above.
With respect to claim 17, the combination of Davenport, Orr, and Graham teaches the invention described in claim 15, including the system wherein the plurality of transmission rules includes a plurality of participant preferences associated with the participant, and wherein the plurality of program instructions further causes the one or more processors to determine how to transmit the first message based on the plurality of participant preferences (Davenport, col. 5, line 39 – col. 6, line 54).
The combination of references is made under the same rationale as claim 1 above.
With respect to claim 18, the combination of Davenport, Orr, and Graham teaches the invention described in claim 15, including the system wherein the plurality of transmission rules includes a quiet time period, and wherein the plurality of program instructions further causes the one or more processors to determine whether or not the first message can be transmitted based on the quiet time period (Davenport, col. 8, lines 19-25).
The combination of references is made under the same rationale as claim 1 above.
With respect to claim 19, Davenport teaches a computer implemented method for intelligent message routing implemented using at least one processor (Davenport, col. 15, lines 11-19), the method comprising: receiving a first message to be transmitted to a participant (Davenport, Fig. 5, element 305; col. 5, lines 23-28); determining a first channel to transmit the first message to (Davenport, Fig. 5, element 315; col. 7, lines 41-50) the participant (Davenport, Fig. 5, element 325; col. 9, lines 4-29); transmitting the first message over the first channel (Davenport, col. 9, lines 4-17).
Davenport does not explicitly teach wherein the first message includes a first conversation identifier signifying a first conversation with the participant; and to the first conversation.
However, Orr teaches wherein the first message includes a first conversation identifier (Orr, pages 2-3, paragraph 35 and page 4, paragraph 51) signifying a first conversation with the participant (Orr, Fig. 3, element 301A; pages 4-5, paragraph 60); and to the first conversation (Orr, Fig. 3, element 301A; pages 4-5, paragraph 60).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Davenport in view of Orr in order to enable wherein the first message includes a first conversation identifier signifying a first conversation with the participant; and to the first conversation. One would be motivated to do so in order to allow users to better categorise their conversations and make it easier for a user to resume a conversation about a particular topic at a later date, or to refer back to that conversation (Orr, page 6, paragraph 87).
The combination of Davenport and Orr does not explicitly teach locking the first channel and until being unlocked.
However, Graham teaches locking the first channel (Graham, col. 35, line 63 – col. 36, line 2) and until being unlocked (Graham, Fig. 5Q-2 and 5Q-3; col. 35, line 63 – col. 36, line 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Davenport and Orr in view of Graham in order to enable locking the first channel and until being unlocked. One would be motivated to do so in order to enable a simple way for a user to easily adjust the provision of notifications in different contexts (Graham, col. 1, lines 53-55).
Claim 20 does not teach or define any new limitations above claim 2 and therefore is rejected for similar reasons.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-10 are objected to as being dependent upon rejected base claims, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Alicia Baturay whose telephone number is (571) 272-3981. The examiner can normally be reached at 7am – 4pm, Mondays – Thursdays, Eastern Time.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in person, or video conferencing using a USPTO-supplied, web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, Applicants are encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) form at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kamal Divecha can be reached at (571) 272-5863. The fax 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.
/Alicia Baturay/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2441
July 23, 2026
Prosecution Insights