Obviousness

Obviousness Analysis under 35 U.S.C. § 103

To establish obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103, it must be shown that the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art. This analysis typically involves the Graham factors: (1) determining the scope and content of the prior art; (2) ascertaining the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art; (3) resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art; and (4) evaluating secondary considerations of non-obviousness. A motivation to combine prior art references is also generally required.

For US patent 11553055, the patent itself mentions "the prior art" in its background section, noting that it includes "a rather primitive example of automating the following of a user's journey through an entities communication-based information path," and that "E-commerce websites have made use of funnel analytics to better understand why and how potential customer make or do not make purchases."

Given that the current date is April 26, 2026, and the patent was issued on January 10, 2023, the time for filing a Post-Grant Review (PGR) has passed, as PGR must be filed within nine months of the patent's issuance. An Inter Partes Review (IPR) remains a possibility, as it can be initiated after the nine-month PGR window, challenging patentability based on anticipation or obviousness using only patents and printed publications as prior art.

Without specific prior art references identified and described in detail within the patent text beyond a high-level conceptual mention of "prior art" in the background, it is not possible to perform a comprehensive obviousness analysis and identify specific combinations of prior art references that would render the claims obvious. The patent itself does not explicitly name or detail specific prior art documents that are being distinguished, making it difficult to pinpoint exact combinations without further information.

To provide a robust obviousness analysis, specific prior art patents, publications, or other publicly available disclosures (pre-dating the priority date of June 22, 2017) would need to be identified. This would involve a comprehensive prior art search, which is outside the scope of the provided patent text and current search capabilities.

However, based on the general description of "prior art" in the patent's background, a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention (June 22, 2017) would likely have been familiar with:

• Automated communication systems: Systems for handling customer inquiries, such as basic chatbots or automated email responses.
• Customer relationship management (CRM) systems: Technologies for managing and analyzing customer interactions and data.
• Machine learning for data analysis: The application of machine learning algorithms to various datasets, including textual data for sentiment analysis or pattern recognition.
• Web crawling and data aggregation: Techniques for collecting information from various online sources.
• Entity identification and categorization: Methods for identifying and classifying businesses or other entities, potentially through online directories or keywords.
• Funnel analytics in e-commerce: Understanding customer journeys and conversion rates in online sales.

The core challenge in a robust obviousness analysis of US11553055 would be to demonstrate that combining these known elements, in the specific manner claimed, would have been obvious to a skilled artisan. This would require showing:

1. Each limitation of the claims is present in one or more prior art references.
2. A motivation to combine these references, meaning there would have been a reason for a skilled artisan to combine the teachings of the prior art elements to achieve the claimed invention. This motivation could come from the prior art itself, from the nature of the problem to be solved, or from common sense.
3. A reasonable expectation of success in achieving the claimed invention by combining the references.

Without a list of specific prior art references from the prosecution history or other sources, any attempt to identify precise combinations and motivations for combination would be speculative. The patent's broad definition of prior art in its background section indicates that the individual components (like machine learning, sentiment analysis, bots, and monitoring agents) were likely known in some form. The inventive step, therefore, would lie in the specific integration and application of these components to create and automatically maintain an entity model, categorize secondary entities, and route conversations based on conversion likelihood.