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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17 (e), was filed in this application after final rejection. since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17 (e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant’s submission filed on 02/16/2026 has been entered.
Claims 1,9, 17, have been amended.
Claims 2,8,10,16,18,have been canceled.
Claims 1,3-7,9,11-15,17,19-26 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Applicant’s Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and arguments filed on 02/16/2026 have been fully considered and discussed in the next section. Applicant is reminded that the claims must be given its broadest, reasonable interpretation.
With regard to “Non statutory double Patent” rejection, Applicant filed terminal disclaimer on 02/16/2026. Therefore the “Non statutory double Patent” rejection is withdrawn.
With regard to claims 1,3-7,9,11-15,17,19-26 rejection under 35 USC § 101:
Applicant argues that “the claims are clearly directed to overcoming a technical issue in a specific technical environment: how to fingerprint and identify audio content playing in a vehicle and then undertake one or more specific computational actions in connection with that identified audio content, all within and using a specifically-configured vehicle-based media system. That is a technical problem that is solved by the technical solution of the present claims, regardless of whether the audio content is associated with advertisement content (or any other type of content). Further, in doing so, the technical issues the claimed elements present a practical application, which is another indicator of patent eligibility. Furthermore, even if the Office disagrees that the elements are integrated into a practical application, the claim presents a technical improvement over existing systems and presents significantly more, both of which are further indicators of patent eligibility (page 2/8)”.
Examiner disagrees. how to fingerprint and identify audio content playing and then undertake one or more specific computational actions in connection with that identified audio content, all within and using a specifically-configured -based media system are part of the abstract idea itself, they are not capable of transforming the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2a, Prong 2 and not capable of being considered "significantly more" under Step 2b.
Only technological improvements rooted in the "additional elements" of a claim are capable of transforming an abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2a, Prong 2, and only "additional elements" are capable of being considered "significantly more" under Step 2b.
Additional elements are those elements outside of the identified abstract idea itself. In the instant case the only additional elements are “network interface, vehicle-based media system, an external computing device, microphone, processor”, which are just general-purpose computers with generic computing components upon which the abstract idea is applied which is insufficient to transform an abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2a, Prong 2 or be considered significantly more under Step 2b.
Thus, any purported technological improvement obtained by practicing the claimed invention is rooted solely in the abstract idea itself which is merely applied using the general-purpose computer, and not rooting in the additional elements upon which the abstract idea is applied.
Improvements of this nature are improvement to an abstract idea which are improvements in ineligible subject matter (SAP v. Investpic decision: Page 2, line 22 through Page 3, line 13 - Even assuming that the algorithms claimed are groundbreaking, innovative or even brilliant, the claims are ineligible because their innovation is an innovation in ineligible subject matter because they are nothing but a series of mathematical algorithms based on selected information and the presentation of the results of those algorithms. Thus, the advance lies entirely in the realm of abstract ideas, with no plausible alleged innovation in the non-abstract application realm. An advance of this nature is ineligible for patenting; and Page 10, lines 18-24 - Even if a process of collecting and analyzing information is limited to particular content, or a particular source, that limitations does not make the collection and analysis other than abstract.). As such, the applicant's arguments are not convincing and the rejections have been maintained.
Furthermore, the use vehicle based media system does no more than apply or link the use of the recited judicial exception to a particular technological environment/field of use. As such Applicant's claimed solution is NOT technological and does not addresses a technological problem. Accordingly, the claim rejection of claims 1, 3-7, 9, 11-15, 17, 19-26 under 35 USC § 101 is maintained.
A. USPTO Policy has not Change
Applicant argues that “ vehicle-based media systems do not have the requisite memory or computational capabilities to identify audio content playing in the vehicle, much less continuously monitor audio content that is being played in the vehicle during background processing and begin capturing the audio only upon recognizing one or more predetermined audio patterns identity reference audio content that is a match for the audio content paving in the vehicle, much less identify one or more computational actions based on the identified audio content. This problem is even more prevalent with when dealing with (and trying to analyze) legacy broadcast systems and signals (e.g., terrestrial radio signals), which do not provide associated metadata (encoded or otherwise). like the claims held patent eligible in Enfish, the plain focus of claim 1 provides increased flexibility, faster search times, and smaller memory requirements, thereby improving the way a computer stores, retrieves, analyzes, and makes computational determinations based on data, and, like claims described in Enfish, should be considered patent eligible, LLC as such (page 4/8)”.
Examiner disagrees. USPTO Policy has NOT changed. The PTO’s preliminary guidelines, which have been followed by Examiner, are completely in line with Supreme Court and Federal Circuit precedent, and provide substantive criteria to both examiners and applicants in defining an abstract idea within a claim and determining overall subject matter eligibility. In the Enfish decision the "additional element" of the self-referential database was considered an improved database, invented by the inventor, that operated in a manner different from traditional databases. Enfish case, the improvement to the computer technology was rooted in the "additional elements" of the claim, wherein the additional elements were implemented using software.
In contrast, the purported improvements in a computer technology by practicing the claims of the instant invention are rooted solely in the abstract idea itself which is merely applied using a general-purpose computer with generic computer components executing software which is an improvement to an abstract idea and, as such, an improvement in ineligible subject matter (see the SAP V. Investpic decision and the Recentive Analytics decision).
Indeed, the identified improvements recited by Applicant are really, at best improvements to the performance of the abstract idea (e.g., improvements made in the underlying business method ( continuously monitor audio content that is being played in the vehicle during background processing and begin capturing the audio only upon recognizing one or more predetermined audio patterns identity reference audio content that is a match for the audio content paving in the vehicle, to identify one or more computational actions based on the identified audio contents ( as directed to analaysing data, which is an abstract idea itself) and not in the operations of any additional elements or technology.
As such, the examiner finds that any improvement obtained by practicing the claimed invention is an improvement to a business process. Second, under Step 2a, Prong 2, the improvement to a technology or technological field must be rooted in the additional element. Additional elements are those elements outside of the identified abstract idea itself. In the instant case the only additional elements are “ network interface, vehicle-based media system, an external computing device, microphone, processor, ”, which are just general-purpose computers with generic computing components upon which the abstract idea is applied which is insufficient to transform an abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2a, Prong 2 or be considered significantly more under Step 2b. Thus, any improvement obtained by practicing the abstract idea, is an improvement obtained by practicing the abstract idea and not rooting in the additional elements upon which the abstract idea is applied. Improvements of this nature are not patent eligible (see SAP v. Investpic: Page 2, line 22 through Page 3, line 13 - Even assuming that the algorithms claimed are groundbreaking, innovative or even brilliant, the claims are ineligible because their innovation is an innovation in ineligible subject matter because there are nothing but a series of mathematical algorithms based on selected information and the presentation of the results of those algorithms. Thus, the advance lies entirely in the realm of abstract ideas, with no plausible alleged innovation in the non-abstract application realm. An advance of this nature is ineligible for patenting; and Page 10, lines 18-24 - Even if a process of collecting and analyzing information is limited to particular content, or a particular source, that limitations does not make the collection and analysis other than abstract.).
Furthermore, the use vehicle based media system does no more than apply or link the use of the recited judicial exception to a particular technological environment/field of use. As such Applicant's claimed solution is NOT technological and does not addresses a technological problem. Accordingly, the claim rejection of claims 1, 3-7, 9, 11-15, 17, 19-26 under 35 USC § 101 is maintained.
B. The Claimed Invention Provides Technical Improvements and Practical Solutions to Technical Problems Described in the Specification
Applicant argues that “the claimed invention involves the interaction of several specifically recited vehicle based media system components coordinating with one another, as well as one or more additional computing systems to perform novel audio analysis on audio content playing within the vehicle. These features provide specific technical improvements over the prior art as described in Applicant's specification (and seemingly acknowledged by the examiner, as no prior rejections exist in this application). Particularly, the claims provide a technical solution to an explicit technical problem in the vehicle-based media system industry-that is how to capture and provide greater context and further information about audio content playing inside a vehicle (including advertisement content) to occupants of the vehicle, all in real time using a microphone of the vehicle-based media system and while the audio content is playing inside the vehicle. See, e.g., Specification, at para. [0017]- [0019], [0037]-[0044], and [0057]-[0062]. Thus, the specification describes a technical problem that is addressed and solved by the technical solution that is reflected in the claims. As such, under Step 2A, Prong 2 of the USPTO's § 101 test, as noted above, the claimed invention is also integrated into a patent-eligible practical application through specific technical improvements identified in both the claims and generally throughout the specification. For example, using various components of a vehicle-based media system to perform the steps of this specific technical solution recited by claim 1, particularly when considered with all the other elements of claim 1, could not reasonably be captured and performed mentally by a human, much less based on real-time data from (and performed in real time by) the vehicle-based media system, nor do any (much less all) of the claim elements of the specifically recited system amount to a mere "abstract idea". Accordingly, Applicant submits that claim 1 does not present an abstract idea and further argues that any alleged abstract idea in claim 1 is integrated into a practical application for vehicle- based media systems. Thus, the § 101 rejections should be withdrawn for at least this reason (page 6/8)”.
Examiner disagrees. how to capture and provide greater context and further information about audio content playing inside a vehicle (including advertisement content) to occupants of the vehicle, all in real time using a microphone of the vehicle-based media system and while the audio content is playing inside the vehicle are part of the abstract idea itself, they are not capable of transforming the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2a, Prong 2 and not capable of being considered "significantly more" under Step 2b.
Under Step 2a, Prong 2, the improvement to a technology or technological field must be rooted in the additional element. Additional elements are those elements outside of the identified abstract idea itself. In the instant case the only additional elements are “ network interface, vehicle-based media system, an external computing device, microphone, processor, ”, which are just general-purpose computers with generic computing components upon which the abstract idea is applied which is insufficient to transform an abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2a, Prong 2 or be considered significantly more under Step 2b. Thus, any improvement obtained by practicing the abstract idea, is an improvement obtained by practicing the abstract idea and not rooting in the additional elements upon which the abstract idea is applied. Improvements of this nature are not patent eligible (see SAP v. Investpic: Page 2, line 22 through Page 3, line 13 - Even assuming that the algorithms claimed are groundbreaking, innovative or even brilliant, the claims are ineligible because their innovation is an innovation in ineligible subject matter because there are nothing but a series of mathematical algorithms based on selected information and the presentation of the results of those algorithms. Thus, the advance lies entirely in the realm of abstract ideas, with no plausible alleged innovation in the non-abstract application realm. An advance of this nature is ineligible for patenting; and Page 10, lines 18-24 - Even if a process of collecting and analyzing information is limited to particular content, or a particular source, that limitations does not make the collection and analysis other than abstract.).
Furthermore, the use vehicle based media system does no more than apply or link the use of the recited judicial exception to a particular technological environment/field of use. As such Applicant's claimed solution is NOT technological and does not addresses a technological problem.
Additionally, Applicant's argument that the claims overcome the 35 USC 101 rejection under Step 2a, Prong 1 because the steps of using various components of a vehicle-based media system to perform the steps of this specific technical solution recited by claim 1, particularly when considered with all the other elements of claim 1, could not reasonably be captured and performed mentally by a human is not convincing. The only abstract idea bucket in which performance by a human is required is the "Mental Process" bucket which requires that the steps be capable of being performed in the human mind. The claims of the instant invention have not been identified as a "Mental Process". Instead the claims of the instant invention have been identified as "Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities". The Subject Matter Eligibility Guidelines indicate that "advertising, marketing or sales related activities" is a subcategory of "Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities". There is no requirement that these "advertising, marketing, or sales related activities" be performed by a human being. Therefore, all steps involved in the performance of advertising, marketing or sales related activities are part of the abstract idea itself irrespective of whether they are performed by a computer or performed by a human being. Thus, the applicant's arguments are moot.
Accordingly, the claim rejection of claims 1, 3-7, 9, 11-15, 17, 19-26 under 35 USC § 101 is maintained.
Applicant argues that “Alternatively, even if the claims are directed to an abstract idea (which Applicant does not concede), the utilization of the specific components of the recited vehicle-based media system in the specific manner presented by claim 1 provides an inventive concept that is not well-understood, routine, or conventional in the art. Claim 1 improves a vehicle-based media system's ability and computational capacity/functionality to specifically recognize, capture, and analyze content that it determines is related to advertising audio content via a microphone, all via a specific fingerprinting protocol, and all in real-time that, absent the claimed invention, the Office admits does not exist. As such, the claimed invention provides a useful and innovative solution to this technological problem by improving the functionality of a vehicle-based media system to perform more accurate, real-time analysis of audio content captured by a microphone of the vehicle-based media system to identify and take specific actions related to advertising content in the captured audio content. For at least these reasons, Applicant respectfully requests that the Office withdraw the § 101 rejection of claim 1. And for largely the same reasons, Applicant requests withdrawal of the § 101 rejections of claims 9 and 17. Additionally, Applicant respectfully requests that the Office withdraw the § 101 rejections of the remaining claims for at least the reason that each of these claims depends from one of claims 1, 9, or 17 (page 7/8)”.
Examiner disagrees. the ability and computational capacity/functionality to specifically recognize, capture, and analyze content that it determines is related to advertising audio content, all via a specific fingerprinting protocol, and all in real-time are part of the abstract idea itself, they are not capable of transforming the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2a, Prong 2 and not capable of being considered "significantly more" under Step 2b.
Only technological improvements rooted in the "additional elements" of a claim are capable of transforming an abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2a, Prong 2, and only "additional elements" are capable of being considered "significantly more" under Step 2b.
Additional elements are those elements outside of the identified abstract idea itself. In the instant case the only additional elements are “network interface, vehicle-based media system, an external computing device, microphone, processor,”, which are just general-purpose computers with generic computing components upon which the abstract idea is applied which is insufficient to transform an abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2a, Prong 2 or be considered significantly more under Step 2b.
Alice decision requires the "additional elements" of the claim which must contribute something "significantly more" than the abstract idea itself that is far from routine and conventional. However, the only "additional elements" in the applicant's claims are a general- purpose computer, and a standard technique. These "additional elements" are merely used as a tool to apply the abstract idea which is insufficient to be considered "significantly more" than the abstract idea. The argued limitations which the applicant asserts are far from routine and conventional are part of the abstract idea itself and not "additional elements" of the claimed invention. Thus, the argued limitations are not capable of being considered "significantly more" under Step 2b. Instead, the argued limitations that the applicant asserts are far from routine and conventional would be, at best, an improvement to the abstract idea which is an improvement in ineligible subject matter. Thus, any purported technological improvement obtained by practicing the claimed invention is rooted solely in the abstract idea itself which is merely applied using the general-purpose computer, and not rooting in the additional elements upon which the abstract idea is applied.
Improvements of this nature are improvement to an abstract idea which are improvements in ineligible subject matter (SAP v. Investpic decision: Page 2, line 22 through Page 3, line 13 - Even assuming that the algorithms claimed are groundbreaking, innovative or even brilliant, the claims are ineligible because their innovation is an innovation in ineligible subject matter because they are nothing but a series of mathematical algorithms based on selected information and the presentation of the results of those algorithms. Thus, the advance lies entirely in the realm of abstract ideas, with no plausible alleged innovation in the non-abstract application realm. An advance of this nature is ineligible for patenting; and Page 10, lines 18-24 - Even if a process of collecting and analyzing information is limited to particular content, or a particular source, that limitations does not make the collection and analysis other than abstract.). As such, the applicant's arguments are not convincing and the rejections have been maintained.
Furthermore, the use vehicle based media system does no more than apply or link the use of the recited judicial exception to a particular technological environment/field of use. As such Applicant's claimed solution is NOT technological and does not addresses a technological problem. Additionally, Examiner asserts that the rejection of claims under 35 USC 101 is separate and distinct from rejections for anticipation and obviousness. Rejecting the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and/or 35 U.S.C. § 103 has no bearing or consequence on the materiality of a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Accordingly, the claim rejection of claims 1, 3-7, 9, 11-15, 17, 19-26 under 35 USC § 101 is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1,3-7,9,11-15,17,19-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception subject matter, specifically an abstract idea. The analysis for this determination is explained below:
Step 1, determine whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. In this case, Step 1, determine whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
In this case, claim(s) 1, 3-7, 21,24-26 are directed to a machine (i.e. a system); claim (s) 9,11-15, 22 are directed to a process (i.e. a method); claim (s) 17, 19-20, 23 are directed to a manufacture (i.e. a non transitory computer medium).
The claimed invention is directed to at least one judicial exception (i.e a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The analysis is as follows:
Claim 1, as exemplary, recites the limitations of: “ outputting, the audio content, monitoring the audio content; recognizing one or more predetermined audio patterns within the audio content; wherein the one or more predetermined patterns comprises one or more of i) a period of silence ; or ii) lack of music content; in response to recognizing one or more predetermined audio patterns within the audio content, capturing audio content, wherein the captured audio content comprises advertisement content; identifying reference audio content that has at least a threshold extent of similarity with the advertisement content of the captured audio content, wherein identifying the reference audio content that has a threshold extent of similarity with the advertisement content of the captured audio content comprises identifying fingerprint data associated with the reference audio content that has at least a threshold extent of similarity with fingerprint data associated with the advertisement content of the captured audio content; identifying a computational action based at least on the identified reference audio content, wherein identifying the computational action based at least on the identified reference audio content comprises identifying a computational action related to the advertisement content of the captured audio content; and wherein the identified computational action comprises displaying, one or more of (i) a Quick Response (QR) code associated with the advertisement content, (ii) a logo associated with the advertisement content, (iii) an image of a food item associated with the advertisement content, or (iv) product information associated with the advertisement content; and sending, an instruction that causes to perform the identified computational action. and sending, instructions to perform the identified computational action”.
The limitations as detailed above, as drafted, falls within the “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas as it relates to commercial interactions of advertising, marketing, or sales activities or behaviors; business relations, because the merely gather data, analyze the data, determine results based upon the analysis, generate tailored content based on the results, and transmit the tailored content. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea (i.e. “PEG” Revised Step 2A Prong One=Yes). Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. Same judicial exception analysis is applied to independent claims 9 and 17.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because recites the following additional elements: “ network interface, vehicle-based media system, an external computing device, microphone, processor, ”, is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic devices performing generic computer functions of storing and presenting information) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Same analysis is applied to claims 9 and 17.
The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above, the additional elements of “ network interface of the vehicle-based media system, an external computing device, processor”, amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional technical elements above do not integrate the abstract idea/judicial exception into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
More specifically, the additional elements fail to include (1) improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field (see MPEP 2106.05(a)), (2) applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (see Vanda memo), (3) applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine (see MPEP 2106.05(b)), (4) effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP 2106.05(c)), or (5) applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda memo).
Rather, the limitations merely add the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)), or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Thus, the claim (s) is/ are “directed to” an abstract idea (i.e. “PEG” Revised Step 2A Prong Two=Yes).
For the same reason these elements are not sufficient to provide an inventive concept. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus the claim is not patent eligible. Same analysis is applied here to independent claims 9 and 17.
The dependent claims 3-7, 11-15, 19-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims merely add further details that narrow that abstract idea of, without significantly more.
The dependent claims 3-7, 11-15, 19-26 appears to merely further limit the abstract idea of Certain methods of organizing Human Activity” as it relates to commercial interactions of advertising, marketing, or sales activities or behaviors; business relations), by adding the additional steps of “ wherein sending the instruction that causes the external computing device to perform the identified computational action further comprises, while causing the one or more speakers to output the advertisement content, sending an instruction that causes the external computing device to display a coupon associated with the advertisement content (claims 3,11); determining a geographic location of the vehicle-based media system; and wherein sending an instruction that causes the external computing device to a coupon associated with the advertisement content further comprises identifying the computational action based at least on the identified reference audio content comprises sending an instruction that causes the external computing device to display a coupon associated with (i) the advertisement content and (ii) information associated with the determined geographic location of the vehicle-based media system and the advertisement content (claims 4, 12, 20); determining address information of a business nearest the determined geographic location of the vehicle-based media system and associated with the advertisement content and, wherein the associated information comprises the address information of the business (claims 5-7, 13-15); identifying the reference audio content that has at least the threshold extent of similarity with the advertisement content of the captured audio content further comprises: generating audio fingerprint data of the advertisement content of the captured audio content; comparing the generated audio fingerprint data to a plurality of reference audio fingerprint items; and determining that a particular reference audio fingerprint item of the plurality of reference audio fingerprint items has at least the threshold extent of similarity with the generated audio fingerprint data (claims 21-23); wherein the network interface comprises a system for facilitating communication involving a connection mechanism, wherein the connection mechanism comprises at least one of: (i) a wired connection, or (ii) a wireless connection (claim 24); wherein the external computing device comprises a mobile computing device associated with the occupant of the vehicle ( claim 25); wherein monitoring the audio content comprises continuously monitoring audio content that is being played in the vehicle, and wherein capturing the audio comprises capturing, via the microphone, the audio content upon recognizing the one or more predetermined audio patterns within the audio content (claim 26).
Thus, the dependent claims further narrows the abstract idea and/or recite additional elements previously rejected in the independent claims 1, 9 and 17.
Accordingly, the claim fails to recite any improvements to another technology or technical field, improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, use of a particular machine, effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, adding unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application, and/or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular environment. See 84 Fed. Reg. 55. Viewed individually or as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Possible Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1,3-7,9,11-15,17,19-26 recite subject matter that would be allowable over the prior art if the Applicant were to be able to overcome the claim rejection under 35 USC § 101 rejection above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Lee, US Pub No: 2009/0063965 A1, teaches preparing a Display document for analysis.
Reisman, US Pub No: 2014/0130105 A1, teaches method and apparatus for browsing using alternative link-bases.
Clemmer, US Pub No: 2014/0172961 A1, teaches system and method for providing matched multimedia video content.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Affaf Ahmed whose telephone number is 571-270-1835. The examiner can normally be reached on [M- R 8-6 pm ].
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ilana Spar can be reached at 571-270-7537. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/AFAF OSMAN BILAL AHMED/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3622
Prosecution Insights