DETAILED ACTION
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 .
The office action is in response to communication filed on 05/19/2025.
Claims 1-10 present for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
It is hereby acknowledged that the following papers have been received and placed of record in the file:
Information Disclosure Statement(s) as received on 11/10/2025 and 01/15/2026 is/are 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 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 1-10 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-9 of U.S. Patent No. 12,326,707 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims in the patent anticipate all the claims in the applications.
Instant Application
Patent (US 12,326,707 B2)
1. A system for providing a uniform messaging platform in a heterogeneous environment, the system comprising:
at least one end-point device;
at least one network;
a hub for routing messages from a source to a destination;
a uniform messaging service comprising:
a device interface that is communicatively coupled to the at least one end-point device and the at least one network;
at least one processor;
at least one memory having stored thereon a uniform messaging application including a plurality of machine executable instructions that when executed by the at least one processor, cause the processor to:
receive at least one message from a source connected to the at least one network for transmission to a destination;
determine whether the destination of the at least one message is a bridge-compatible device;
convert the at least one message into a uniform bridge message when the destination is determined to be a bridge-compatible device;
convert the at least one message into a native destination-format message when the destination is determined be a non-bridge compatible device; and
output the converted message to the at least one network for transmission to the destination.
1. A system for providing a uniform messaging platform in a heterogeneous environment, the system comprising:
at least one end-point device;
at least one network;
a hub for routing messages from a source to a destination;
a uniform messaging service comprising:
a device interface that is communicatively coupled to the at least one end-point device and the at least one network;
at least one processor;
at least one memory having stored thereon a uniform messaging application including a plurality of machine executable instructions that when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to:
receive at least one message from the source connected to the at least one network for transmission to the destination;
determine whether the destination of the at least one message is a bridge-compatible device;
convert the at least one message into a uniform bridge message when the destination is determined to be a bridge-compatible device;
convert the at least one message into a native destination-format message when the destination is determined be a non-bridge compatible device; and
output the converted message to the at least one network for transmission to the destination; and
wherein the bridge-compatible device is an end-point device including the uniform messaging service;
wherein the uniform bridge message is created by inserting a native format of the at least one message as-is into a payload section of the uniform bridge message and inserting a header section including routing information.
2. The system of claim 1 wherein the hub further comprises a universal serial bus (USB) interface, a Bluetooth interface, an ultrawideband (UWB) interface, serial data interface and a TCP/IP interface.
2. The system of claim 1 wherein the hub further comprises a universal serial bus (USB) interface, a Bluetooth interface, an ultrawideband (UWB) interface, serial data interface and a Transmission Control Protocol/Internet Protocol (TCP/IP) interface.
The system of claim 1 wherein the uniform messaging service further comprises a multi-protocol routing application in the at least one memory having a plurality of machine executable instructions that when executed by the at least one processor, cause the processor to:
select at least one interface from a plurality of interfaces to route the converted message to the destination based on at least one selected transport protocol and availability status of the plurality of interfaces; and
route the converted message to the destination using the at least one selected interface.
3. The system of claim 1 wherein the uniform messaging service further comprises a multi-protocol routing application in the at least one memory having a plurality of machine executable instructions that when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to:
select at least one interface from a plurality of interfaces to route the converted message to the destination based on at least one selected transport protocol and availability status of the plurality of interfaces; and
route the converted message to the destination using the at least one selected interface.
4. The system of claim 1 wherein the instructions of the uniform messaging application further cause the processor to:
select at least one transport protocol for transmission of the converted message to the destination; and
output the at least one selected transport protocol along with the converted message.
4. The system of claim 1 wherein the instructions of the uniform messaging application further cause the at least one processor to:
select at least one transport protocol for transmission of the converted message to the destination; and
output the at least one selected transport protocol along with the converted message.
5. The system of claim 4 wherein the at least one transport protocol is selected from a group comprising Bluetooth, USB, UWB, Wi-Fi and SMBus.
5. The system of claim 4 wherein the at least one transport protocol is selected from a group comprising Bluetooth, universal serial bus (USB), ultrawideband (UWB), Wi-Fi and system management bus (SMBus).
6. The system of claim 1 wherein the instructions of the uniform messaging application further cause the processor to:
detect an end-point device connected to the at least one network;
create a profile for the detected end-point device; and
store the created profile in a profile database.
6. The system of claim 1 wherein the instructions of the uniform messaging application further cause the at least one processor to:
detect an end-point device connected to the at least one network;
create a profile for the detected end-point device; and
store the created profile in a profile database.
7. The system of claim 6 wherein a source is an end-point device connected to the at least one network and the destination is an end-point device connected to the at least one network.
7. The system of claim 6 wherein the source is an end-point device connected to the at least one network and the destination is an end-point device connected to the at least one network.
8. The system of claim 7 wherein the instructions of the uniform messaging application further cause the processor to:
examine the profile of the destination to determine whether the destination is a bridge compliant device.
8. The system of claim 7 wherein the instructions of the uniform messaging application further cause the at least one processor to:
examine a profile of the destination to determine whether the destination is a bridge compliant device.
9. The system of claim 7 wherein a native destination-format message is a message formatted consistent with the operating platform of the corresponding destination end-point device.
9. The system of claim 7 wherein a native destination-format message is a message formatted consistent with an operating platform of the corresponding destination end-point device.
10. The systems for providing a uniform messaging platform in a heterogeneous environment, the system as shown and described herein.
1. A system for providing a uniform messaging platform in a heterogeneous environment, the system comprising:
…
Claim Objections
Claims 1-6 and 8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 12, “the processor” should read “the at least one processor”;
Claims 2, and 5 use acronyms without stating what the acronyms stand for or represent. For example, claim 2 recites “TCP/IP” in line 2. It should read “Transmission Control Protocol/Internet Protocol (TCP/IP)”. This needs to be done for each first occurrence of an acronym in the Claims.
Claim 3, line 3, “the processor” should read “the at least one processor”;
Claim 4, line 2, “the processor” should read “the at least one processor”;
Claim 6, line 2, “the processor” should read “the at least one processor”;
Claim 8, line 2, “the processor” should read “the at least one processor”;
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, claim limitation recites “the destination” in line 18, which renders the claim vague and indefinite. It is unclear whether “the destination” is referring to “a destination” in claim 1, line 5, or to “a destination” in claim 1, line 14, or to a different/distinct destination.
Regarding claim 1, claim limitation recites “the destination” in line 20, which renders the claim vague and indefinite. It is unclear whether “the destination” is referring to “a destination” in claim 1, line 5, or to “a destination” in claim 1, line 14, or to a different/distinct destination.
Regarding claim 1, claim limitation recites “the destination” in line 22, which renders the claim vague and indefinite. It is unclear whether “the destination” is referring to “a destination” in claim 1, line 5, or to “a destination” in claim 1, line 14, or to a different/distinct destination.
Regarding claim 3, claim limitation recites “the destination” in line 6, which renders the claim vague and indefinite. It is unclear whether “the destination” is referring to “a destination” in claim 1, line 5, or to “a destination” in claim 1, line 14, or to a different/distinct destination.
Regarding claim 3, claim limitation recites “the destination” in line 8, which renders the claim vague and indefinite. It is unclear whether “the destination” is referring to “a destination” in claim 1, line 5, or to “a destination” in claim 1, line 14, or to a different/distinct destination.
Regarding claim 4, claim limitation recites “the destination” in lines 3-4, which renders the claim vague and indefinite. It is unclear whether “the destination” is referring to “a destination” in claim 1, line 5, or to “a destination” in claim 1, line 14, or to a different/distinct destination.
Regarding claim 7, claim limitation recites “the destination” in line 2, which renders the claim vague and indefinite. It is unclear whether “the destination” is referring to “a destination” recited in claim 1, line 5, or to “a destination” in claim 1, line 14, or to a different/distinct destination.
Claim 8 recites the limitation " the profile of the destination" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 8, claim limitation recites “the destination” in line 3, which renders the claim vague and indefinite. It is unclear whether “the destination” is referring to “a destination” recited in claim 1, line 5, or to “a destination” in claim 1, line 14, or to a different/distinct destination.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the operating platform of the corresponding destination end-point device" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “the systems” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 10, claim limitation recites “the system as shown and described herein” in line 2, which renders the claim vague and indefinite.
All dependent claims are rejected as having the same deficiencies as the claims they depend from.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chen et al. (US 2008/0215694 A1), hereinafter Chen.
Regarding claim 10, Chen discloses
The systems for providing a uniform messaging platform in a heterogeneous environment, the system as shown and described herein ([0028]: provides a unified messaging system via heterogeneous networks).
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, and 6-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen, in view of Andolina (US 2022/0224668 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Chen discloses
A system for providing a uniform messaging platform in a heterogeneous environment ([0028]: provides a unified messaging system via heterogeneous networks), the system comprising:
at least one end-point device ([0032]: a user 210 has a wireless IM device);
at least one network ([0028]: heterogeneous networks);
a hub for routing messages from a source to a destination ([0037]: the bearer connection component 101 for being delivered to the recipient of the messages through standard protocols);
a uniform messaging service (unified messaging system 100) comprising:
a device interface that is communicatively coupled to the at least one end-point device and the at least one network ([0028]: the unified messaging system functions to provide a messaging service platform between a plurality of users);
at least one processor ([0027]);
at least one memory having stored thereon a uniform messaging application including a plurality of machine executable instructions that when executed by the at least one processor, cause the processor to:
receive at least one message from a source connected to the at least one network for transmission to a destination ([0030]: receive a message from a sender);
convert the at least one message into a uniform bridge message when the destination is determined to be a bridge-compatible device ([0031]: convert a specific type of message into an object which can be converted by service mediation component into a unified format message; a device that requires message to be translated into a unified format message corresponds to a bridge-compatible device);
convert the at least one message into a native destination-format message when the destination is determined be a non-bridge compatible device ([0028]: converting the unified format message into a message according to the most suitable terminal device for the recipient; a device that requires message to be translated into a message according to the most suitable terminal device corresponds to a non-bridge compatible device); and
output the converted message to the at least one network for transmission to the destination ([0028]: delivering the message to the recipient).
Chen does not explicitly disclose
determine whether the destination of the at least one message is a bridge-compatible device.
However, Andolina discloses
determine whether the destination of the at least one message is a bridge-compatible device ([0032]: performs a lookup of the one or more destination devices in the device list using the device ID of each destination device; the device list provides the current protocol, current polling status and “last seen” time/data, such as a timestamp of the last time/date the device was polled).
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate feature of Andolina to Chen because Chen discloses convert a specific type of message into a unified format message ((0031]) and Andolina further suggests performs a lookup of the destination devices ([0032]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize the teachings of Andolina in the Chen system in order to determine the best suitable format to convert message based on destination device information.
Regarding claim 2, Chen and Andolina disclose the system as described in claim 1. Chen and Andolina further disclose
the hub further comprises a universal serial bus (USB) interface, a Bluetooth interface, an ultrawideband (UWB) interface, serial data interface and TCP/IP interface (Andolina: [0013]: some devices communicates using a WiFi network connection protocol, a Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE) network connection protocol or a LoRa (Long Range) connection protocol).
Regarding claim 6, Chen and Andolina disclose the system as described in claim 1. Chen further discloses
detect an end-point device connected to the at least one network ([0028]: a message sender and a message recipient having terminal devices in communication with the unified messaging system);
create a profile for the detected end-point device ([0040]: the UserProf stores all the information across heterogeneous networks, including but not limited to account and presence status on each network and terminal capabilities, collected by the bearer connection component); and
store the created profile in a profile database ([0040]: the user attribute information database maintains global information of a user in an entity UserProf; the UserProf stores all the information across heterogeneous networks, including but not limited to account and presence status on each network and terminal capabilities, collected by the bearer connection component).
Regarding claim 7, Chen and Andolina disclose the system as described in claim 6. Chen further discloses
a source is an end-point device connected to the at least one network and the destination is an end-point device connected to the at least one network ([0028]: a message sender and a message recipient having terminal devices in communication with the unified messaging system).
Regarding claim 8, Chen and Andolina disclose the system as described in claim 7. Chen and Andolina further disclose
examine the profile of the destination to determine whether the destination is bridge compliant device (Andolina: [0032]: performs a lookup of the one or more destination devices in the device list; & [0033]: determine whether the polling status for the device is on; if so, interrogates whether the device is stale, where a stale device is a device that has not communicated with the unified message server/hub). Therefore, the limitations of claim 8 are rejected in the analysis of claim 7 above and the claim is rejected on that basis.
Regarding claim 9, Chen and Andolina disclose the system as described in claim 7. Chen further discloses
a native destination-format message is a message formatted consistent with the operating platform of the corresponding destination end-point device ([0028]: converting the unified format message into a message according to the most suitable terminal device for the recipient; & [0051]: converts the unified format message into a new message compatible with the determined terminal device for the recipient).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Andolina, further in view of Molsberry et al. (US 8,462,799 B2), hereinafter Molsberry.
Regarding claim 3, Chen and Andolina disclose the system as described in claim 1. Chen and Andolina further disclose
the uniform messaging service further comprises a multi-protocol routing application in the at least one memory having a plurality of machine executable instructions that when executed by the at least one processor ([0017]: the unified application messaging service comprise a registrar and tracker logic deployed in a unified messaging server/hub that complements an existing application messaging service, such as MQTT, AMPQ, DMX, etc.).
Chen and Andolina do not explicitly disclose
select at least one interface from a plurality of interfaces to route the converted message to the destination based on at least one selected transport protocol and availability status of the plurality of interfaces; and
route the converted message to the destination using the at least one selected interface.
However, Molsberry discloses
select at least one interface from a plurality of interfaces to route the converted message to the destination based on at least one selected transport protocol and availability status of the plurality of interfaces (Claim 1: (A) generating a standard internet protocol (IP) based message on-board the aircraft by a client; (D) selecting one of the communication interfaces for use in transmitting the standard IP based message from the aircraft to the ground station); and
route the converted message to the destination using the at least one selected interface (Claim 1: transmitting the standard IP based message from the aircraft to the ground station using the communication interface selected in step (D)).
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate feature of Molsberry to Chen and Andolina because Chen and Andolina disclose delivering the message to the recipient (Chen: [0028]) and Molsberry further suggests selecting one of communication interfaces to transmit message (Claim 1).
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize the teachings of Molsberry in the Chen and Andolina system in order to ensure the system to transmit message to the desired recipient by using suitable communication interface.
Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Andolina, and further in view of Yang (US 2010/0130162 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Chen and Andolina disclose the system as described in claim 1. Chen and Andolina do not explicitly disclose
select at least one transport protocol for transmission of the converted message to the destination; and
output the at least one selected transport protocol along with the converted message.
However, Yang discloses
select at least one transport protocol for transmission of the converted message to the destination ([0014]: converts messages into the selected protocol before transmitting the resulting communication to the access point); and
output the at least one selected transport protocol along with the converted message ([0014]: converts messages into the selected protocol before transmitting the resulting communication to the access point).
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate feature of Yang to Chen and Andolina because Chen and Andolina disclose delivering the converted message to the recipient (Chen: [0028]) and Yang further suggests selecting protocol to transmit message ([0014]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize the teachings of Yang in the Chen and Andolina system in order to ensure the system to transmit message to the desired recipient by using suitable protocol.
Regarding claim 5, Chen, Andolina, and Yang disclose the system as described in claim 4. Chen, Andolina, and Yang further disclose
the at least one transport protocol is selected from a group comprising Bluetooth, USB, Wi-Fi and SMBus (Yang: [0014]: communication between access point and the terminating mobile devices is conducted in accordance with any appropriate wired or wireless protocols such as WiFi, WiMax, HTTP/TCP/IP, etc.). Therefore, the limitations of claim 5 are rejected in the analysis of claim 4 above, and the claim is rejected on that basis.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Dixon et al. (US 2012/0011233 A1). Upon detection of the new device, the registration system determines whether the device is compatible with a specified protocol X ([0031]).
Sharpe et al. (US 2015/0172827 A1). Transmit the message via a protocol selected from a group consisting of: Bluetooth, near field communications, and low energy Bluetooth.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAYLEE J HUANG whose telephone number is (571)272-0080. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM.
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, Joon H Hwang can be reached on 571-272-4036. 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.
Kaylee Huang
07/16/2026
/KAYLEE J HUANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2447
Prosecution Insights