Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
2. The RCE amendment of the CIP application filed on January 12, 2026, has been received and recorded. In response to RCE Non-Final Office Action mailed on September 10, 2025, applicant amended claims 1-4, 6, 14-19, 27-30, 32, and 38 of which claims 1, 14, and 27, are independent claims. Dependent claims 5, 7-13, 20-26,31, 33-37 and 39-41 are maintained. NO claim has been cancelled and/or added as a new claim after the RCE Non-Final Office Action. Therefore, claims 1-41 have been pending for consideration.
Terminal Disclosure
3. Applicant has submitted “terminal disclaimer” on September 17, 2024, with respect to the published U.S. Patent No. US 11, 726, 656 B2. The “terminal disclaimer” has been accepted, reviewed and approved by the Office. NO Double Patenting rejection.
Response to Arguments
4. Applicant's arguments, in REMARKS, filed on April January 12, 2026, with respect to independent claims 1, and 27 have been fully considered but are moot in view of new ground of rejection as necessitated by applicant's amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
5. 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.
6. Claims 1-13 and 27-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 1 and 27 are directed towards a device/ system. However, it is noted that the use of the word “device” and/or “system” do(es) not inherently mean that the claim is directed towards a machine or article of manufacture. Each means of the claimed device/system can be interpreted as comprising entirely of software per se according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Therefore, the claim language fails to provide the necessary hardware required for the claim to fall within the statutory category of a device.
Claims 1 and 27 do not define structural and functional descriptive material used in interrelationship between the computer software and the hardware like a memory or processor. Descriptive material can be characterized as either “functional descriptive material” or “nonfunc-tional descriptive material.” Both types of “descriptive material” are nonstatu-tory when claimed as descriptive material per se, 33 F.3d at 1360, 31 USPQ2d at 1759. When functional descriptive material is recorded on some computer-readable medium, it becomes structurally and func-tionally interrelated to the medium and will be statu-tory in most cases since use of technology permits the function of the descriptive material to be realized. Compare In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 1583-84, 32 USPQ2d 1031, 1035 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
Applicant is suggested to amend the independent claim(s) by adding structure element with the computing system and/or device(i.e., computing device and/or system having microprocessor, memory and display controller----).
Claims 2-13 and 28-39 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because of their dependency on the rejected base claims respectively.
Allowable Subject Matter
7. Claims 14-26, 40, and 41 are allowed.
8. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Claim 14: None of the cited prior arts on record, taken alone or in combination, provides a reasonable motivation to fairly teach or suggest the applicant’s claim invention, “a system for an intelligent keyboard for generating suggested messages comprising: a computing device comprising a microprocessor, a memory, a display controller, ------, --------, the intelligent keyboard application comprising: a user specification module, where a user of the intelligent keyboard inputs text requirements for suggested text to be generated, software code that assembles a set of requirements for the suggested text comprising one or more parameters from the group comprising the type of computing device, a type of an application on said computing device, the identity of user, the identity of a recipient of the suggested text, text from a conversation, tone of the suggested text provided by the user, demographic information of the user, and demographic information of the recipient and where said software code compiles the set of requirements for the suggested text into an instruction for suggested text to be generated by a generative artificial intelligence model wherein the generative artificial intelligence model accepts the instruction and outputs a set of suggested text and the intelligent keyboard presents the set of suggested text to the user, and wherein the network is configured for transmitting data between computer systems” with all other limitations cited in independent claim 14.
Claim 40: The Applicants’ replies make evident the reasons for allowance, satisfying the “record as a whole” proviso of the rule 37 CFR 1.104(e). Specifically, the substance of applicants’ remarks, filed on April 10, 2025, as such the reasons for allowance are in all probability evident from the record and no statement is deemed necessary (see MPEP 1302.14).
Claims 15-26 and 41 are allowed because of their dependency on the allowed base claims respectively.
Conclusion
9. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground 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.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MD SAIFUL A SIDDIQUI whose telephone number is (571)270-1530. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri: 9:00AM - 5:30PM.
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, Temesghen Ghebretinsae, can be reached on (571)272-3017. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/MD SAIFUL A SIDDIQUI/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2626
Prosecution Insights