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. 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA) 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. (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim s 1-4, 11-12, 15, 17-18, and 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 a1/a2 as being anticipated by Kochura et al (U.S. 2017/0060368), hereinafter Kochura . With respect to claim 1 , Kochura teaches a method, implemented by a computing machine, for constructing a knowledge base of a user wherein the method comprises at least one update to information contained in the knowledge base of the user and relating to a use of at least one terminal of the user, based on information extracted from useful application areas of a digital image of a screenshot of at least part of the rendering from at least one screen of a terminal, the useful application areas being areas containing at least one item of data provided by at least one application via the at least one screen or received by the application via a user interface of the terminal and rendered on the screen ([0019], training stage to recognize UI objects, predefined user interface actions, screenshots, etc. , the user using an application; [0023], the training allows the user to use the application to verbally command application operations; [0015], UI screen) . Claim 2 is the computing machine corresponding to method claim 1, and is analyzed accordingly. Claim 15 is the processing circuit corresponding to method claim 1, and is analyzed accordingly. With respect to claim 3 , Kochura teaches t he method according to claim 1, wherein the screenshot applies to the entire rendering from the screen ([0019], screenshot, corresponding to the entire screen) . With respect to claim 4 , Kochura teaches t he method according to claim 1 . Kochura further teaches wherein the screenshot applies to at least part of the rendering from the screen corresponding to an application window displayed on the at least one screen ([0015], within the respect UI display screen or dialog box) . With respect to claim 11 , Kochura teaches t he method according claim 1, wherein the useful application areas are areas that are not related to a presentation of features of the at least one application and for which an application window is displayed on the screen ([0019], mouse clicks, text typed, scroll bars) . With respect to claim 12 , Kochura teaches t he method according claim 1 wherein the extraction of information from the useful application areas comprises an extraction belonging to a group comprising: extracting information on text appearing in the useful application areas by an optical character recognition technique; and extracting information on image elements appearing in the useful application areas b y a computer vision technique ([0019], text read or typed, corresponding to recognizing the characters, also image elements in the useful areas, such as menu bar, radial buttons, etc.) . Claims 25-26 correspond claims 11-12, and are analyzed accordingly. Claims 17-18 correspond to claims 3-4, and are analyzed accordingly. 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA) 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. Claim s 5-6 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kochura in view of Oh et al, (U.S. 2018/0189655), hereinafter Oh . With respect to claim 5 , Kochura teaches t he method according to claim 4 , however fails to teach wherein the method comprises upon detection of an opening of the application window on the screen, storing in the knowledge base information on the position, the size and/or a display rank of the application window, and in that, for a new update to the knowledge base, the screenshot depends on the information on the position, the size and/or the display rank. Oh teaches wherein the method comprises upon detection of an opening of the application window on the screen, storing in the knowledge base information on the position, the size and/or a display rank of the application window, and in that, for a new update to the knowledge base, the screenshot depends on the information on the position, the size and/or the display rank ([0095], windows with different sizes, [0119], windows of different size are sampled) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the teaching of Kochura of training to recognize display positions and images with the system of Oh where training includes window positions to continuously learn to abbreviate data for the user as described by Oh throughout. With respect to claim 6 , Kochura teaches t he method according claim 4 wherein, however fails to teach if the terminal allows several application windows to be displayed on the screen simultaneously, at least one update to the knowledge base is performed in a separate entry of the knowledge base for each of the application windows. Oh teaches wherein, however fails to teach if the terminal allows several application windows to be displayed on the screen simultaneously, at least one update to the knowledge base is performed in a separate entry of the knowledge base for each of the application windows ([0119], separate windows overlap, including size information of windows) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the teaching of Kochura of training to recognize display positions and images with the system of Oh where training includes window positions and size to continuously learn to abbreviate data for the user as described by Oh throughout. Claims 19-20 correspond to claims 5-6, and are analyzed accordingly. Claim s 10 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kochura in view of Guidotti et al, (U.S. 2021/0085239), hereinafter Guidotti. With respect to claim 10 , Kochura teaches t he method according to claim 4 . Kochura fails to teach wherein, upon detection of a resizing and/or a moving of an application window, the method comprises storing in the knowledge base new information on the position, the size and/or the display rank of the application window, and in tha t for each new update to the knowledge base, the screenshot depends on the new information on the position, the size and/or the display rank. Guidotti teaches wherein, upon detection of a resizing and/or a moving of an application window, the method comprises storing in the knowledge base new information on the position, the size and/or the display rank of the application window, and in tha t for each new update to the knowledge base, the screenshot depends on the new information on the position, the size and/or the display rank ([0023], resizing the window to check whether the different size enhances identification of relevant events). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the system of Kochura which teaches detecting objects with the system of Guidotti of resizing the window in order to see if the learning module can detect images in an enhanced way with the resizing as described by Guidotti in the cited section . Claim 24 corresponds to claim 10, and is analyzed accordingly. Claim s 13 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kochura in view of Perona et al, (U.S. 2019/0034831), hereinafter Perona. With respect to claim 13 , Kochura teaches t he method according to claim 1 , however fails to teach wherein the extraction of information from the useful application areas takes into account a detection confidence score. Perona teaches wherein the extraction of information from the useful application areas takes into account a detection confidence score ([0084-0085]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the system of Kochura of detecting objects with the teaching of an object detection score in order to associate a score with the detection probability as described by Perona in the cited section. Claim 27 corresponds to claim 13, and is analyzed accordingly. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 7-9 and 21-23 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The prior fails to disclose or reasonably suggest the subject matter of claim 7 as a whole with respect to the overlap rate combined with the other features. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT MARK D FEATHERSTONE whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-3750 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday-Friday 9:00AM - 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, John Cottingham FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT can be reached at 571-272-1400 . 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. /MARK D FEATHERSTONE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2111