Prior art

Analysis of Prior Art Cited in US Patent 11,336,597

As a senior US patent analyst, I have reviewed the prior art cited on the face of US Patent 11,336,597. The following analysis details each cited reference and its potential relevance to the claims of the '597 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102 (Anticipation).

A reference anticipates a claim if it discloses, either expressly or inherently, each and every element of that claim. The independent claims of the '597 patent (Claims 1 and 18) are the primary focus, as the invalidity of an independent claim typically renders its dependent claims invalid as well.

The core novelty of US Patent 11,336,597 appears to be the combination of:

• An unauthenticated web user initiating a communication.
• A first responder (e.g., a virtual assistant) engaging the user.
• The system then identifying a second, different responder based on the user's input.
• Routing the communication to this second responder via their specific, potentially different, communication protocol (e.g., SMS, email).
• Managing the entire conversation through a conversation identifier, ensuring replies are mapped back to the correct anonymous user on the web browser, all while maintaining anonymity between the user and the second responder.

---

Prior Art Analysis

1. U.S. Patent 9,106,599 B2

• Full Citation: Dandison et al., U.S. Patent 9,106,599 B2, "Two-way real time communication allowing asymmetric participation across multiple electronic platforms."
• Publication/Filing Dates:
  • Publication Date: August 11, 2015
  • Filing Date: October 16, 2012
• Description: This patent is an earlier patent in the same family as the '597 patent. It describes a system for connecting a web-based user (initiator) with one or more responders using different real-time communication (RTC) protocols. It details how an initiator can start a conversation from a website without providing identifying information. The system then matches the initiator with potential responders based on pre-defined criteria and routes messages between them, translating between protocols like HTTP, SMS, and instant messaging. It explicitly mentions maintaining anonymity and managing conversations.
• Potential Anticipation:
  • Claims 1 & 18: This reference is highly relevant as it discloses the foundational elements of the '597 patent's claims. It describes receiving a communication from a web user, matching them to responders, using different communication modes, and routing messages. However, the claims of the '597 patent introduce a specific, nuanced step: the sequential involvement of a "first responder" and then a "second responder, wherein the second responder is different from the first responder." The '599 patent speaks generally of matching an initiator to a "pool of subscribing respondents." It does not explicitly detail the two-step responder handoff (e.g., from a virtual assistant to a live agent) recited in claim 1. Therefore, while it describes most of the system, it may not anticipate the specific two-responder structure, which could be argued as a patentable improvement.

2. U.S. Patent 9,894,019 B2

• Full Citation: Dandison et al., U.S. Patent 9,894,019 B2, "Two-way real time communication system that allows asymmetric participation in conversations across multiple electronic platforms."
• Publication/Filing Dates:
  • Publication Date: February 13, 2018
  • Filing Date: July 30, 2015
• Description: This is another patent in the same family, a continuation of the work in the '599 patent. It further elaborates on the system for anonymous, cross-platform communication. It includes details about using a "concierge or virtual assistant" to engage the initiator while the system finds a live responder.
• Potential Anticipation:
  • Claims 1 & 18: This reference comes closer to anticipating the claims than the '599 patent. It explicitly discloses the use of a "concierge or virtual assistant" (the '597 patent's "first responder"). The description states this assistant "stalls for time to allow the respondents the opportunity to respond." This strongly suggests the two-step process. The system receives a user communication, the virtual assistant (first responder) engages, and then a live agent (second responder) is brought in. This reference likely discloses all elements of the independent claims, making a strong case for anticipation. The distinction may lie in how the claims are construed by a court, but on its face, the '019 patent appears to describe the same inventive concept.

3. U.S. Patent 10,841,253 B2

• Full Citation: Dandison et al., U.S. Patent 10,841,253 B2, "Two-way real time communication system that allows asymmetric participation in conversations across multiple electronic platforms."
• Publication/Filing Dates:
  • Publication Date: November 17, 2020
  • Filing Date: February 8, 2018
• Description: Also a member of the same patent family, this patent continues to refine the description of the communication system. It builds upon the concepts of anonymous users, multi-protocol responders, and the use of a virtual assistant.
• Potential Anticipation:
  • Claims 1 & 18: Similar to the '019 patent, this reference very likely discloses all the elements of the independent claims of the '597 patent. As part of the same chain of continuing applications, it describes the same fundamental system. The specific claim language in the '597 patent appears to be a re-phrasing of the concepts disclosed and claimed in this earlier family member. A detailed claim chart would be necessary for a definitive conclusion, but a strong argument for anticipation exists.

Conclusion on Examiner-Cited Art:

The most relevant prior art references are, unsurprisingly, earlier patents from the same family. The examiner cited these patents during the prosecution of the '597 patent. The allowance of the '597 patent in light of these references suggests that the examiner found a patentable distinction, likely in the specific phrasing and sequence of the "first responder" and "second responder" limitations. In litigation, a defendant would likely argue that these earlier family members teach the entire inventive concept and that the '597 claims are not novel. The patent holder, Disintermediation Services, would argue that the specific combination and sequence claimed in the '597 patent is a non-obvious improvement over the disclosures of its parent patents.