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 .
Response to Arguments
The objections the Drawings, Specification and Claims are withdrawn based on the amendment filed on 12/16/2025.
Applicant’s arguments in light of the amendment filed on 12/16/2025, with respect to prior art rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive as they incorporated previously indicated allowable subject matter. The 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claims 21-25 and 31-35 have been withdrawn. However, in the manner in which the previously indicated allowable subject matter was incorporated into the independent claims cause is indefinite as indicated in the 35 U.S.C. 112 rejection below.
Claim Objections
Claim 40 is objected to because of the following informalities: missing period. 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 21-25, 27-35 and 37-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 21 and 31 recites the limitation "the robotic persuasive reference" in. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. First, it is unclear how the feedback attributes can include “feedback information for the robotic persuasive reference” when the last limitation of “generating a personalized robotic persuasive reference” has not been invoked yet. Second, it is unclear if “the robotic persuasive reference” is identical and referencing ‘a personalized robotic persuasive reference’. To expedite prosecution, Examine assumes “the robotic persuasive reference” is referencing to the later invoked “a personalized robotic persuasive reference” and that “the feedback information for the robotic persuasive reference” is available only after “generating a personalized robotic persuasive reference”.
Claims 22-25, 27-30, 32-35 and 37-40 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 21-25, 27-35 and 37-40 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112 set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALAN CHEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4143. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-7.
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, Kamran Afshar can be reached at (571) 272-7796. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ALAN CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2125
Prosecution Insights