2020002310 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 17, 2021)

Vonage Business Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardAug 17, 2021

2020002310 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 17, 2021)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www.uspto.gov APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 15/651,623 07/17/2017 Tzahi Efrati V343 3983 72623 7590 08/17/2021 MOSER TABOADA / VONAGE HOLDINGS CORP. 1030 BROAD STREET SUITE 203 SHREWSBURY, NJ 07702 EXAMINER ROBERTS, SHAUN A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2657 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/17/2021 ELECTRONIC Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address(es): docketing@mtiplaw.com llinardakis@mtiplaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte TZAHI EFRATI and KEVIN JOHN ALWELL ________________ Appeal 2020-002310 Application 15/651,623 Technology Center 2600 ____________ Before JASON J. CHUNG, BETH Z. SHAW, and MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1‒6, 9‒17, and 19‒21, which are all the claims pending in this application.1 Claims 7, 8, and 18 have been canceled. Appeal Br. 17, 20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies Vonage Business Inc. as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2020-002310 Application 15/651,623 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction Appellant’s application relates to fulfilling communication requests received by a chatbot service through SMS messaging. Spec. ¶ 1. Claim 1 is illustrative of the appealed subject matter and reads as follows: 1. A computer implemented method for contextually based fulfillment of communication requests via a telephony platform, comprising: receiving via a telephony-based communication, at a fulfillment center, a user request for a service, wherein the user request is directed to a dedicated inbound identifier of a telephony system, and wherein the dedicated inbound identifier is associated with the identity of the service provider capable of fulfilling the user request; determining, by the fulfillment center, a service provider capable of fulfilling the user request; translating the user request into one or more user intents; creating, by the fulfillment center, a contextual framework based on the user intent, wherein the contextual framework comprises a plurality of information, and wherein the plurality of information is based on the requested service; requesting additional information from the user regarding details of the user intent to complete the contextual framework; and fulfilling, by the fulfillment center, the user request using the user intents when the contextual framework is complete, wherein fulfilling the user request comprises: converting the user intent into a service provider request; and sending the request to the service provider for fulfillment. Appeal 2020-002310 Application 15/651,623 3 The Examiner’s Rejection Claims 1‒6, 9‒17, and 19‒21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Fisher (US 8,954,317 B1; Feb. 10, 2015) and Fry (US 2014/0379338 A1; Dec. 25, 2014). Final Act. 4‒13. ANALYSIS The Examiner finds the combination of Fisher and Fry teaches or suggests “receiving via a telephony-based communication, at a fulfillment center, a user request for a service, wherein the user request is directed to a dedicated inbound identifier of a telephony system, and wherein the dedicated inbound identifier is associated with the identity of the service provider capable of fulfilling the user request.” See Final Act. 5 (citing Fisher 3:21‒31, 3:39‒51, 4:46‒55); Ans. 8‒11 (citing Fisher 3:39‒51, 5:6‒ 8). In particular, the Examiner finds Fisher teaches a user sending a text message including keywords that can be used to launch certain services that correspond to a service provider. Ans. 9‒10. For example, the user may send a text message that says “I want to pay my satellite television bill,” and the system will identify the service provider associated with the user’s satellite television bill. Id. The Examiner finds the specific keywords are used with additional registered information associated with the user to serve as dedicated inbound identifiers that identify third party services capable of fulfilling the request. Id. at 10. The Examiner also finds Fisher teaches initiating a transaction by entering a short code for their favorite music outlet, which explicitly teaches a dedicated inbound identifier. Id. at 10‒11 (citing Fisher 5:6‒8). Appeal 2020-002310 Application 15/651,623 4 Appellant argues the Examiner errs in rejecting claim 1 because the cited portions of Fisher do not teach or suggest a user request “directed to a dedicated inbound identifier.” See Appeal Br. 8‒11; Reply Br. 2‒4. In particular, Appellant argues Fisher provides no disclosure as to how the keywords in the user’s request are used to identify a service provider. Appeal Br. 9. Appellant argues the disclosed keywords do not identify a service provider and are not dedicated to a particular service provider. Reply Br. 2. Instead, Appellant argues the disclosed keywords are used in some undisclosed manner to determine a service provider with the aid of additional information, as the Examiner acknowledges by finding that keywords are used “with additional registered information.” Id. at 3 (citing Ans. 10). Appellant also argues the user request is not “directed to” the disclosed keywords, as claimed, because the user request merely contains the keywords in the body of the request. Id. at 3. Appellant has persuaded us of Examiner error. Claim 1 recites a user request “directed to a dedicated inbound identifier . . . wherein the dedicated inbound identifier is associated with the identity of the service provider.” The Examiner has not sufficiently explained how Fisher’s user request that contains a keyword is directed to a dedicated inbound identifier. That is, the Examiner finds the disclosed keywords are used with additional information to determine the identity of a service provider, but the Examiner fails to sufficiently explain how the message containing the disclosed keywords is directed to the keywords. The Examiner also fails to sufficiently explain how the keywords are dedicated inbound identifiers because the Examiner has not identified, nor have we found, any teachings in Fisher explaining how the keywords are used to identify service providers. Thus, there is no Appeal 2020-002310 Application 15/651,623 5 explanation as to how the keywords, even if they are used to identify a service provider, are dedicated to that provider. We are also persuaded that the Examiner’s finding regarding the short code for a favorite music outlet is erroneous because this short code is used in a different embodiment that does not involve a fulfillment center that identifies a service provider. Fisher 5:1‒24. Instead, the short code routes the message directly to the service provider. Id. Thus, the Examiner has not established that the cited portions of Fisher teach or suggest a user request “directed to a dedicated inbound identifier.”2 For these reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 1. We also do not sustain the rejection of independent claims 13 and 21, which recite commensurate subject matter. We also do not sustain the rejection of dependent claims 2‒6, 9‒12, 14‒17, 19, and 20. CONCLUSION In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1‒6, 9‒17, 19‒21 103 Fisher, Fry 1‒6, 9‒17, 19‒21 REVERSED 2 Because we agree with at least one of the dispositive arguments advanced by Appellant, we need not reach the merits of Appellant’s other arguments.