DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the amendment filed 07/14/2025.
Claims 1, 8, and 15 have been amended and claims 2, 9, and 16 have been canceled. Claims 1, 3-8, 10-15, and 17-20 are pending and have been examined on the merits (claims 1, 8, and 15 being independent).
The amendment filed 07/14/2025 to the claims has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments and amendments filed 07/14/2025 have been fully considered.
Applicants assert that the pending claims fully comply with the requirement of 35 U.S.C. 101. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s argument and amendments have been considered and are not persuasive. The rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been maintained and clarified in view of the USPTO MPEP 2106.
Applicant’s arguments (see Applicant’s remarks, page 7):
(1) Applicant arguments that “Applicant respectfully asserts that the claimed approach here does not recite an "abstract idea." Instead, the claimed approach is directed to solving the problem involving a distant or remote gift giver often being unable to observe the reaction of a gift recipient, e.g., in case of gift-giving between distant individuals via mobile device transfers, electronic gift card exchanges, and remote product purchases via online shopping platforms. Thus, the invention does not recite an "abstract idea" and does not belong to the group of methods for organizing human activity such as fundamental economic principles or commercial interactions.” (see remarks, page 7), are not found persuasive.
Examiner considers under Step 2 A, Prong 1 of the 2019 Revised § 101 Guidance, it is determined whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception such as a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea (See Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355) by identify the specific limitation(s) in the claim that recites abstract idea(s); and then determine whether the identified limitation(s) falls within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the MPEP 2106.04. Specifically, independent claim 1 (independent claims 8 and 15 recite similar features of claim 1) comprises inter alia the functions or steps of receiving… a request…, identifying… a response action for the asset…., determining… response parameters…, mapping… a response parameter…, causing… the asset to be sent…, triggering… the identified response action…, receiving… the response… The cited limitations as drafted are systems and methods that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of a method of organizing human activity, but for the recitation of the generic computer components. Further, none of the limitations recite technological implementations details for any of the steps but, instead, only recite broad functional language being performed by the generic use of at least one processor. Transferring an asset (e.g., gift, digital currency, cash, content item, message, etc.) between users or entities is a fundamental economic practice long prevalent in commerce systems. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a fundamental economic principle or practice but for the general linking to a technological environment, then it falls within the organizing human activity grouping of abstract ideas. So the claimed approach is directed to a solution to a business problem, not a technical problem. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
With regard to the rejections of claims under 35 U.S.C. 102/103, Applicant’s arguments and amendments have been considered but are not persuasive and Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that Applicant is arguing newly amended claim language. As noted in the citation above the prior art and it is addressed by the rejections under 35 USC 102/103.
(1) Applicant arguments that “sending a personalized digital gift as taught in Sparks is not equivalent to the claimed identifying a response action. Rather, the claimed response action includes sending an instruction to the second device (the gift recipient device) that causes a response from a user of the second device to be sent to the first device. This is in contrast with simply sending a personalized gift to a recipient as in Sparks.” (see remarks, page 2), are not found persuasive. Examiner consider the clarifying citations with regard the Sparks (see ¶ [0059] and [0097-0098]) have been made to the 35 USC § 102 rejection above. Applicant seems to be interpreting the claim language more narrowly/specifically than what is recited. As such, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 3-8, 10-15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As the recited claim in independent claims 1, 8 and 15, “a plurality of response parameters indicated by the user profile”, the subject matter is not properly described in the application as filed, and provide an explanation of your position. The recited amendment as highlighted above is not clear as to how the plurality of response parameters are indicated by the user profile because the claimed limitations are not described in the application with sufficient detail beyond the claimed function being repeated in the written description.
Dependent claims (3-7, 10-14, and 17-20) stand rejected also, under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) by virtue of their dependency on a rejected claim.
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, 3-8, 10-15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter without significantly more.
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, (1) it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, (2a) it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), and if so (2b), it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Examples of abstract ideas include fundamental economic practices; certain methods of organizing human activities; an idea itself; and mathematical relationships/formulas. Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., 573 U.S. (2014).
The claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. In the instant case, the claim(s) as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea.
Step (1): In the instant case, the claims are directed towards to a method for asset-invoked reaction indication which contains the steps of receiving, identifying, determining, mapping, causing, triggering, and receiving. The claim recites a series of steps and, therefore, is a process. The claims do fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because claim 1 is direct to a method, claim 8 is direct to a system, and claim 15 is direct to a non-transitory computer-readable medium, i.e. machines programmed to carrying out process steps, Step 1-yes.
Step (2A) Prong 1: A method for asset-invoked reaction indication is akin to the abstract idea subject matter grouping of: Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity as fundamental economic principles or practices and/or commercial or legal interactions. As such, the claims include an abstract idea. For example, the specific limitations of independent claim 1 (independent claims 8 and 15 recite similar features of claim 1) are identified to encompass the abstract idea include: receiving… a request…, identifying… a response action for the asset…., determining… response parameters…, mapping… a response parameter…, causing… the asset to be sent…, triggering… the identified response action…, receiving… the response… As stated above, this abstract idea falls into the subject matter grouping of: Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity as fundamental economic principles or practices and commercial or legal interactions.
Step (2A) Prong 2: The instant claims do not integrate the exception into a practical application because additional elements: 1) “a first device” and “a second device” amount to simply applying the abstract idea to a computer. (e.g. “apply it”) 2) “a processor” and “configured to perform operations”, describe transmitting generic instructions to a generic device, and therefore also amount to simply applying the abstract idea to a generic computer component. (e.g. “apply it”) do not apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that that imposes a meaningful limitation on the judicial exception (i.e. generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use - see MPEP 2106.05(h) or apply it 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)).
The instant recited claims including additional elements (i.e. a first device, a second device, processor, memory, and computing device) do not improve the functioning of the computer or improve another technology or technical field nor do they recite meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. The limitations merely use a generic computing technology (Specification paragraphs [0012-0013]: user device, a smart device, mobile device, a computing device, communication with network, a communication module, wireless communication protocol and/or standards (e.g., Wi-Fi, BLUETOOTHTM, LTE, LTE-A, ZigBee, Ant+, near field communications (NFC), UWB (Ultra-wideband), 3G, 4G, 5G, PCS, GSM, etc.) apply it 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)). Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea
Step (2B): The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements (Claims: e.g., a first device, a second device, processor, memory, and computing device) amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exactly using generic computer component. The claim elements when considered separately and in an ordered combination, do not add significantly more than implementing the abstract idea over a generic computer network with a generic computer element.
The computer is merely a platform on which the abstract idea is implemented. Simply executing an abstract concept on a computer does not render a computer “specialized,” nor does it transform a patent-ineligible claim into a patent-eligible one. See Bancorp Servs., LLC v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can., 687 F.3d 1266, 1280 (Fed. Cir. 2012). There are no improvements to another technology or technical field, no improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing or any other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment as a result of performing the claimed method. Also, the addition of merely novel or non-routine components to the claimed idea does not necessarily turn an abstraction into something concrete (See Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, _ F.3d_, 2014 WL 5904902, (Fed. Cir. Nov. 14, 2014). Hence, the claims do not recite significantly more than an abstract idea. In conclusion, merely “linking/applying” the exception using generic computer components does not constitute ‘significantly more’ than the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05 (f)(h)). Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Dependent claims 3-7, 10-14, and 17-20 when analyzed as a whole and in an ordered combination are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea, as detailed below. The additional recited limitations in the dependent claims only refine the abstract idea.
For instance, in claims 3, 10, and 17, the step of “….sending an instruction to … that causes at least one of audio content indicative of a user … or video content indicative of the user to be sent to….” (i.e., sending an instruction), in claims 4, 11 and 18, the step of “… determining,… the user profile and historical information for a user...; receiving … forecast sentiments for users based on user information, based on the historical data for the user input … a forecasted sentiment for the user…” (i.e., determining historical information and receiving a forecast sentiment), in claims 5, 12, and 19, the step of “… wherein the response action comprises sending an instruction … that causes an emotive avatar of a user … to be sent to...” (i.e., sending an instruction), in claims 6, 13, and 20, the step of “… sending … an interactive notification that causes … to display the asset based on an interaction ...” (i.e., sending notification), and in claims 7 and 14, the step of “… causing the asset to be sent to...” (i.e., sending asset) are all processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of a fundamental economic practice but for the recitation of a generic computer component. Determining a user profile and historical information, receiving a sentiment data for the user, and sending a message and an asset to the user are a most fundamental commercial process.
This is an abstract concept with nothing more and is also considered mere instructions to apply an exception akin to a commonplace business method or mathematical algorithm being applied on a general purpose computer, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd.; Gottschalk and Versata Dev. Group, Inc.; see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
In dependent claims 3-7, 10-14, and 17-20, the step claimed are rejected under the same analysis and rationale as the independent claims 1, 8, and 15 above. Merely claiming the same process using a computing device (e.g., a mobile device) to transfer an asset to a recipient and receive a response action from the recipient does not change the abstract idea without an inventive concept or significantly more. Clearly, the additional recited limitations in the dependent claims only refine the abstract idea further. Further refinement of an abstract idea does not convert an abstract idea into something concrete.
Therefore, claims 1, 3-8, 10-15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
In the rejections below, where claims are currently amended, this is indicated by underlining.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, 6-8, 10-11, 13-15, 17-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sparks, Lindsay et al. (hereinafter Sparks), WO 2021/007546 A1.
Regarding claim 1:
Sparks discloses the following:
A computer-implemented method for asset-invoked reaction indication, comprising: (Sparks: See abstract)
receiving (reads on “The user device 101 then initiates transmission of the digital gift to the gift recipient via the communication system of the user device 101.”), from a first device (reads on “the user device 101”), a request to send an asset (reads on “the digital gift”) to a second device (reads on “the gift recipient”); (Sparks: See paragraph [0057])
identifying (reads on “the user device 101 asks the gift recipient U2 a set of one or more questions via the audio speaker and respectively records a set of one or more answers from the gift recipient U2 via the microphone. These one or more questions and one or more answers are used to confirm the user wants to play the digital gift.”), based on a user profile associated with the second device and a type of the asset, a response action for the asset, wherein the identifying the response action for the asset comprises: (Sparks: See paragraph [0059] “A digital gift wrapper 105, which is associated with the digital gift, is sent to the user device 102 of the gift recipient U2. The gift recipient U2 and the user device 102 interact with each other by speaking and listening to play the digital gift. For example, the user device 101 asks the gift recipient U2 a set of one or more questions via the audio speaker and respectively records a set of one or more answers from the gift recipient U2 via the microphone. These one or more questions and one or more answers are used to confirm the user wants to play the digital gift. After the user device 102 receives a positive confirmation from the gift recipient U2, the user device 102 plays the digital gift.”, and see also [00161-00163])
determining (reads on “assigns stock digital gift wrappers to a gift recipient or a gift giver, based on their personal profile (e.g. age, gender, interests, likes, culture, hobbies, occupation, past-occupation, etc.).”), based on an identifier of the second device received with the request to send the asset, a plurality of response parameters indicated by the user profile; and (Sparks: See paragraph [0097] “the connect server system assigns stock digital gift wrappers to a gift recipient or a gift giver, based on their personal profile (e.g. age, gender, interests, likes, culture, hobbies, occupation, past-occupation, etc.). For example, if the gift recipient is known to enjoy drink a certain brand of coffee, and the gift giver is known to be a bird-watching enthusiast, then the stock digital gift wrapper that is used includes: images, animation, or video of a coffee cup displaying the certain brand; or images, animation, video or sounds of birds; or a combination thereof.”)
mapping (reads on “assigns stock digital gift wrappers to a gift recipient or a gift giver, based on their personal profile (e.g. age, gender, interests, likes, culture, hobbies, occupation, past-occupation, etc.).”) a response parameter of the plurality of response parameters for the type of the asset to the response action for the asset; (Sparks: See paragraph [0097] “the connect server system assigns stock digital gift wrappers to a gift recipient or a gift giver, based on their personal profile (e.g. age, gender, interests, likes, culture, hobbies, occupation, past-occupation, etc.). For example, assigns stock digital gift wrappers to a gift recipient or a gift giver, based on their personal profile (e.g. age, gender, interests, likes, culture, hobbies, occupation, past-occupation, etc.).; or a combination thereof.”)
causing (reads on “After the user device 102 receives a positive confirmation from the gift recipient U2, the user device 102 plays the digital gift. The content of the digital gift is then transmitted to the user device 102”), based on the identifying the response action, the asset to be sent to the second device; (Sparks: See paragraph [0059], and see also [00161)
triggering (reads on “the user device 101 asks the gift recipient U2 a set of one or more questions via the audio speaker and respectively records a set of one or more answers from the gift recipient U2 via the microphone. These one or more questions and one or more answers are used to confirm the user wants to play the digital gift. After the user device 102 receives a positive confirmation from the gift recipient U2, the user device 102 plays the digital gift.”), based on an indication that the second device received the asset, the identified response action, wherein the response action comprises sending (reads on “the user device 101 asks the gift recipient U2 a set of one or more questions via the audio speaker”) an instruction to the second device that causes (reads on “respectively records a set of one or more answers from the gift recipient U2 via the microphone “) a response from a user of the second device to be sent to the first device; and (Sparks: See paragraph [0059] “A digital gift wrapper 105, which is associated with the digital gift, is sent to the user device 102 of the gift recipient U2. The gift recipient U2 and the user device 102 interact with each other by speaking and listening to play the digital gift. For example, the user device 101 asks the gift recipient U2 a set of one or more questions via the audio speaker and respectively records a set of one or more answers from the gift recipient U2 via the microphone. These one or more questions and one or more answers are used to confirm the user wants to play the digital gift. After the user device 102 receives a positive confirmation from the gift recipient U2, the user device 102 plays the digital gift.”, and see also [00161-00163])
receiving (reads on “The response message is then sent to the connect server system 103 and then is transmitted to the gift giver's user device 101.”), from the second device, the response of the user of the second device. (Sparks: See paragraph [0061], and see also [0060]
Regarding claim 3:
Sparks discloses the following:
The method of claim 1, wherein the response action comprises sending an instruction to the second device that causes (reads on “prompts the gift recipient if they wish to send a response message (e.g. a thank you message)”) at least one of audio content indicative of a user of the second device or video content indicative of the user to be sent to the first device. (Sparks: See paragraph [0092] “the user device 102 prompts the gift recipient if they wish to send a response message (e.g. a thank you message). After detecting that the gift recipient wishes to send a response message, the user device 102 activates one or more recording devices (e.g. microphone or camera, or both) to record the response message.”)
Regarding claim 4:
Sparks discloses the following:
The method of claim 1, wherein the identifying the response action for the asset comprises:
determining (reads on “assigns stock digital gift wrappers to a gift recipient or a gift giver, based on their personal profile (e.g. age, gender, interests, likes, culture, hobbies, occupation, past-occupation, etc.).”), based on an identifier of the second device received with the request to send the asset, the user profile and historical information for a user of the second device indicated by the user profile; (Sparks: See paragraph [0097] “the connect server system assigns stock digital gift wrappers to a gift recipient or a gift giver, based on their personal profile (e.g. age, gender, interests, likes, culture, hobbies, occupation, past-occupation, etc.). For example, assigns stock digital gift wrappers to a gift recipient or a gift giver, based on their personal profile (e.g. age, gender, interests, likes, culture, hobbies, occupation, past-occupation, etc.).; or a combination thereof.”)
receiving (reads on “predicts that the gift recipient will be sad in 2 hours from now (e.g. at 7:00pm, such as for sundowning)”) from a predictive model trained to forecast sentiments for users based on user information, based on the historical data for the user input to the predictive model, a forecasted sentiment for the user of the second device, and mapping (reads on “initiate the user device of the gift recipient to play a happy digital gift in advance to prevent the gift recipient from thinking about things related to sadness.”) the forecasted sentiment to the response action for the asset. (Sparks: See paragraph [00180] “The connect server system then uses data science to build, train or update predictive model(s) of behavioral score(s) of user.”, [00190] “If the connect server system predicts that the gift recipient will be sad in 2 hours from now (e.g. at 7:00pm, such as for sundowning), the connect server system will initiate the user device of the gift recipient to play a happy digital gift in advance to prevent the gift recipient from thinking about things related to sadness. More generally, the connect server system attempts to prevent certain negative behaviors in advance, or attempts to encourage certain positive behaviors in advance, or both.”)
Regarding claim 6:
Sparks discloses the following:
The method of claim 1, wherein the causing the asset to be sent to the second device comprises sending the second device an interactive notification that causes the second device to display the asset based on an interaction with the interactive notification. (Sparks: See paragraph [0055] “the digital gift wrapper is sent first to a user device of the gift recipient, and the digital gift wrapper includes one or more conditions that are to be satisfied before playing the digital gift. After the one or more conditions are satisfied, then the digital gift is sent to the user device of the gift recipient.”, and see also [0059])
Regarding claim 7:
Sparks discloses the following:
The method of claim 1, wherein the causing the asset to be sent to the second device comprises causing the asset to be sent to the second device from at least one of the first device or a content source. (Sparks: See paragraph [00201] “multiple gift givers U1, U3 contribute in providing a physical gift 2102 and a digital gift 105 to the gift recipient U2. For example, the gift givers U1 and U3 both pay for the physical gift 2102. For example, the gift givers buy a new chair for the gift recipient U2.”)
Regarding claims 8 and 15: it is similar scope to claim 1, and thus it is rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claims 10 and 17: it is similar scope to claim 3, and thus it is rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claims 11 and 18: it is similar scope to claim 4, and thus it is rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claims 13 and 20: it is similar scope to claim 6, and thus it is rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 14: it is similar scope to claim 7, and thus it is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
In the rejections below, where claims are currently amended, this is indicated by underlining.
Claims 5, 12,and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sparks in view of D’Alessandro, US Publication Number 2022/0172256 A1.
Regarding claim 5:
Sparks does not explicitly disclose the following, however D’Alessandro further teaches
The method of claim 4, wherein the response action comprises sending an instruction to the second device that causes (reads on “sends the selected predetermined response to a user device 120 associated with the user Bob in response.”) an emotive avatar (reads on “emojis” or “an emoticon”) of a user of the second device (reads on “the user of the mobile handset 405”) to be sent to the first device (reads on “a user device 120 associated with the user Bob”). (D’Alessandro: See paragraph [0142] “The confirmation indicator message GUI incudes virtual buttons allowing the user to choose one of a set of predetermined responses 510, such as the word "Thanks!," a series of heart emojis, or a series of "thumbs up" emojis. Selection of one of these predetermined responses at the confirmation indicator message GUI sends an instruction from the mobile handset 405 to the inter-account interaction servers 130, which receives the instruction and sends the selected predetermined response to a user device 120 associated with the user Bob in response.”, and see also [0257])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify systems that allow people to send and receive digital gifts by listening to voice prompts from a chat bot and providing voice responses of Sparks to include sending a response such as an emojis or an emoticon to a user device associated with the user, as taught by D’Alessandro, in order to provide more options for sending messages between users. (D’Alessandro, see paragraphs [0142] and [0257])
Regarding claims 12 and 19: it is similar scope to claim 5, and thus it is rejected under similar rationale.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record but not relied upon herein but pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure is listed in the enclosed PTO-892.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 YONG S PARK whose telephone number is (571)272-8349. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9:00-5:00 PM, EST.
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, Bennett M. Sigmond can be reached on (303)297-4411. 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.
/YONGSIK PARK/Examiner, Art Unit 3694
September 19, 2025
/BENNETT M SIGMOND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3694
Prosecution Insights