DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the Amendment filed on 12/08/2025. Claims 1-20, 22, 24, 25, 27, 29, 31, 32, and 34-40 had been previously canceled. Claims 21, 23, 26, 28, 30, 33, and 41-54 are pending in the case. Claims 21 and 28 are independent claims.
Examiner’s Notes
An examination of this application reveals that applicant is unfamiliar with patent prosecution procedure. While an applicant may prosecute the application (except that a juristic entity must be represented by a patent practitioner, 37 CFR 1.31), lack of skill in this field usually acts as a liability in affording the maximum protection for the invention disclosed. Applicant is advised to secure the services of a registered patent attorney or agent to prosecute the application, since the value of a patent is largely dependent upon skilled preparation and prosecution. The Office cannot aid in selecting an attorney or agent. A listing of registered patent attorneys and agents is available at https://oedci.uspto.gov/OEDCI/. Applicants may also obtain a list of registered patent attorneys and agents located in their area by writing to the Mail Stop OED, Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450.
Claim Objections
Claims 21, 23, 26, 28, 30, 33, and 41-54 are objected to because the claims are generally narrative, they appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document, and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors, including: missing articles (“a,” “an,” “the,” etc. before introducing a claim limitation for the first time), double inclusion/antecedent basis issues (introducing the same claim limitation again after it had already been introduced earlier in the claim or in a parent claim), lack of antecedent issues (parting from a premise that a claim had already been introduced when it has not, such as referring to a claim limitation as “the [term]” when there was no prior formal introduction for “a [term]”), and/or unclear/confusing wording/metes and bounds (e.g. jumbling up and/or mixing and matching many term possibilities (e.g. “at least one of one or more”) with multiple “or”s and/or “and any combination thereof” within the same clause while mixing and matching them with alternating functionalities). See, for example:
Claim 21:
The lack of antecedent basis for “the user client device” (line 4)
The lack of antecedent basis for “the conversation containing spoken phrases” (line 6)
The multitude of improper reintroductions for the limitations:
“one or more keywords” (lines 17 and 20)
“identified keywords” (line 18)
“obtained audio” (line 19)
“keywords” (line 23)
“conversation” (line 24)
Incomprehensible language:
“select one or more keywords from a displayed, identified keywords” (lines 17-18)
“automatically selecting identified keywords based on obtained audio of the conversation containing spoken phrases for identifying, selected one or more keywords specific one of one or more types of one or more contents” (lines 18-21)
“obtaining one or more content items by causing a matching between keywords associated with and keywords identified from the content items and identified and selected keywords of conversation” (lines 22-24)
Claim 28:
The lack of antecedent basis for “the user client device” (line 7)
The lack of antecedent basis for “the conversation containing spoken phrases” (line 9)
The multitude of improper reintroductions for the limitations:
“one or more keywords” (lines 20 and 23)
“identified keywords” (line 21)
“obtained audio” (line 22)
“spoken phrases” (line 22)
“keywords” (lines 25-27)
“conversation” (line 27)
Incomprehensible language:
“select one or more keywords from a displayed, identified keywords” (lines 20-21)
“automatically select identified keywords and tags based on obtained audio of the conversation containing spoken phrases for identifying, selected one or more keywords specific one of one or more types of one or more contents” (lines 21-24)
“obtain one or more content items by causing a matching between keywords associated with and keywords identified from the content items and identified and selected keywords of conversation” (lines 25-27)
The rest of the dependent claims (particularly claims 26, 33, 46, 47, 53, and 54):
Even though many of the previously objected “or” recitations have been amended, the new language does not help to better understand the claims because the amended language still incomprehensively mixes and matches a sprawling array of unrelated alternatives, intermixed with improperly used commas and language that makes it very unclear what the actual metes and bounds of each claim are (like various “one or more of” instances mixed with “and” language, cascading “and” recitations substituting previous “or’s” that are not used correctly, and/or “and any combination thereof” conclusions after a series of “and” statements).
See, for example, claim 46, which recites: “allowing the system to, monitoring, tracking, storing and analyzing, applying rules, extracting or identifying and recognizing plurality of keywords, key phrases, categories, ontology provided by the user and from one or more types of user data, wherein user data including one or more types of detail user profiles, monitored, tracked, detected, recognized, sensed, logged and stored activities, actions, status, manual status provided and updated by user, locations and checked-in-places, events, transactions, reactions including liked, disliked and commented contents, shared one or more types of visual media and contents, viewed one or more types of visual media and contents, read, listened, conversations, communications, collaborations, interactions, following, participations, behavior and senses from one or more sources, domains, subject and activities specific contextual survey structured including fields and values and un- structured forms, devices, sensors, accounts, profiles, storage mediums, databases, web sites, applications, services, web services, networks, servers and user connections, contacts, groups, networks, relationships and followers and user provided categories, sub-categories or taxonomy and provided one or more keywords and user mentioned relationships.”
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 21, 23, 26, 28, 30, 33, and 41-54 are rejected as failing to define the invention in the manner required by 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors. Independent claims 21 and 28 (and their corresponding dependent claims) are replete with: improper antecedent basis duplications and/or lack of antecedent basis issues (see the Claim Objections section above for examples), improper grammar, incoherent intermixing of purported functionalities (like “enabling the user to select one or more keywords from a displayed, identified keywords or automatically selecting identified keywords”), incomprehensible functionality due to poor grammar and/or claim construction (“enabling the user to select one or more keywords from a displayed, identified keywords or automatically selecting identified keywords based on obtained audio of the conversation containing spoken phrases for identifying, selected one or more keywords specific one of one or more types of one or more contents”), incomplete and or missing language (“causing a matching between keywords associated with {associated with what?} and keywords identified from the content items and identified and selected keywords of conversation”) and/or an overall unclear demarcation of the claims’ actual/intended metes and bounds. These issues result in the claims being so incomprehensible as to preclude a reasonable search of the prior art by the examiner. The claims should be revised carefully in order to comply with 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but appear to be moot. They address the additional cited references (which were not actually/officially relied upon for actual prior art rejections) instead of focusing and/or resolving the actual previously presented rejections (mainly, the severe grammar issues with the claims that render them unexaminable for purposes of prior art analysis). As was expressed in the last interview with the Applicant, it is imperative that the language of the claims be fixed to at least be understandable so that a proper prior art analysis can take place. Since that still has not taken place, the Office respectfully maintains the previously presented USC § 112(b) rejections.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicants are reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure. Applicant is required under 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(c) to consider these references fully when responding to this action.
Inventor
Document ID
Relevance
Rathod; Yogesh Chunilal
US 20160255139 A1
As explained above, the indefiniteness issues with the claims preclude a reasonable search of the prior art by the examiner. Nonetheless, this reference appears to be at least somewhat related to what the examiner can at least extrapolate as to have been the invention the Applicant attempted to describe. It shows selecting keywords to be detected in conversations for the purposes of summoning matching content items (¶¶ 22, 41, 63-65, & 83).
Yelton; Alexis et al.
US 20190166403 A1
As explained above, the indefiniteness issues with the claims preclude a reasonable search of the prior art by the examiner. Nonetheless, this reference appears to be at least somewhat related to what the examiner can at least extrapolate as to have been the invention the Applicant attempted to describe. It shows selecting keywords to be detected in conversations for the purposes of summoning matching content items (¶¶ 05-12).
Danyluk; Nicholas et al.
US 20190087500 A1
As explained above, the indefiniteness issues with the claims preclude a reasonable search of the prior art by the examiner. Nonetheless, this reference appears to be at least somewhat related to what the examiner can at least extrapolate as to have been the invention the Applicant attempted to describe. It shows selecting keywords to be detected in conversations for the purposes of summoning matching content items (¶¶ 59 & 96).
It is noted that any citation to specific pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 U.S.P.Q. 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 U.S.P.Q. 275, 277 (C.C.P.A. 1968)).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALVARO R CALDERON IV whose telephone number is (571)272-1818. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday (8:30am - 5:00pm).
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, Matthew Ell can be reached on (571) 272-4057. 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 Information 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.
/ALVARO R. CALDERON IV/
Examiner
Art Unit 2171
/KIEU D VU/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2171