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 .
Note: the prior art of Chomard (US Pub No. 2008/0222172) has cited to consider the prior art after correction the the rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1, 8, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth 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. Evidence that claims 1, 8, 15 fail(s) to correspond in scope with that which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA applications the applicant regards as the invention can be found in the reply filed. In that paper, the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA applications the applicant has stated, and this statement indicates that the invention is different from what is defined in the claim(s) because.
Claim 1, 8, 15 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.
Claim 1 recited “a method for enhancing customer experience, the method comprising: receiving one or more customer inputs while a customer is conversing with a user; predicting a software application of interest for the customer based on the one or more customer inputs; and generating a buildcard based on the predicted software application” as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter. Claim was missing the step function to describe how the receiving one or more customer inputs while a customer is conversing with a user ; predicting a software application of interest for the customer based on the one or more customer inputs; and generating a buildcard based on the predicted software application; and how to perform the structure of enhancing customer experience, the method comprising: receiving one or more customer inputs while a customer is conversing with a user; predicting a software application of interest for the customer based on the one or more customer inputs vs generating a buildcard based on the predicted software application.
Claim 8, 15 are rejected for the same reasons as described above.
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 15-20 are directed to “The computer readable storage medium”.
The specification broadly includes media that is “not limited to information-delivery media” in [0016], which is broad enough to include transitory media. According to the Official Gazette 1351 OG 212 of 23 Feb 2010, “Subject Matter Eligibility of Computer Readable Media”, the “broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a computer readable medium (also called machine readable medium and other such as variations) typically covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer readable medium, particularly when the specification is silent.” “When the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim covers a signal per se, the claim must be rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as covering non-statutory subject matter.” “A claim drawn to such a computer readable medium that covers both transitory and non-transitory embodiments may be amended to narrow the claim to cover only statutory embodiments to avoid a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 by adding the limitation “non-transitory” to the claim.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Choomard (US Pub No. 2008/0222172) discloses method and device for authoring a digital videodisc; programme, recording medium and instantiating module for said method.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHUOC HUU DOAN whose telephone number is (571)272-7920. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00AM - 4:00PM.
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, LESTER KINCAID can be reached at 571-272-7922. 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.
/PHUOC H DOAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2646