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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to communications regarding the applicant’s amendments and arguments, filed on 10/16/2025.
Claims 1-30, 35-36, 42-43 and 49-50 have been canceled.
Claims 31-34, 37-41, and 44-48 are pending.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
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.
Response to Arguments and Amendments
Applicant's arguments filed on 10/16/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the following reasons:
Applicant’s main argument is that Danyluk does not teach the claimed feature “calculating a conversation stickiness score of the first user, wherein the conversation stickiness score is calculated based on an average length of time taken by the first user to move between any two topics across all prior conversations of the first user”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with the above argument.
In response to Applicant’s above argument, it is noted that Danyluk teaches claimed feature “calculating a conversation stickiness score of the first user, wherein the conversation stickiness score is calculated based on an average length of time taken by the first user to move between any two topics across all prior conversations of the first user” by using the system keeps track on an average length of time a person stay on a topic in a conversation comprising plurality of topics in par. 0058-0059, 0080 as follow:
“[0058] … In one or more examples, a conversation (or discussion) includes multiple conversation topics. The media retrieval system 110 extracts the one or more topics from the conversation.[0059] In addition to extracting the one or more conversation topics from the conversation (or discussion), the media retrieval system 110 keeps track of one or more attributes and/or metrics for each conversation topic. For example, the media retrieval system 110 keeps track of the amount of time spent discussing a topic and/or the person with whom the user is conversing. The media retrieval system 110 may also keep track of an order of topics in the conversation. The one or more attributes are used to prioritize the conversation topics, in one or more examples…[0080]…The attributes may further include a timestamp corresponding the last time the conversation topic was discussed. Further, the attributes include an amount of time the conversation topic was discussed in each conversation. Alternatively, or in addition, an average amount of time the conversation topic was discussed is listed. The attributes also include a frequency of a conversation topic being used in different conversations of the user. The attributes further include an identity of one or more (other) users with whom the conversation topic was discussed by the user of the media retrieval system 110”
Specifically, the claimed feature is directed toward Specification paragraph 0031, Fig 3 and Fig 4 as followed “"Past Conversation Stickiness Score" may include a length of a time period before a prior conversation (of the user) associated with a first topic becomes associated with a second topic. For example, as shown in the classification table 310, the time between the first topic (class) "Game of Thrones" at time t1 and the second topic (class) "Narcos" at time t6 is the time between time t1 and time t6. A user's "Past Conversation Stickiness Score" may be averaged across all prior conversations of the user, or only certain ones of the prior conversations of the user (e.g., only conversations between the user and another specific user)” . Accordingly, the time between “time t1” and “time t6” is the length of time associated with the first topic, and “Past Conversation Stickiness Score” is the averaged length of time associated with all prior conversations associated with the first topic such as “Game of Thrones”. Danyluk clearly teaches the same feature in at least in par. 0080 “…[0080]…The attributes may further include a timestamp corresponding the last time the conversation topic was discussed. Further, the attributes include an amount of time the conversation topic was discussed in each conversation. Alternatively, or in addition, an average amount of time the conversation topic was discussed is listed”. As such, Danyluk clearly teaches claimed feature “calculating a conversation stickiness score of the first user, wherein the conversation stickiness score is calculated based on an average length of time taken by the first user to move between any two topics across all prior conversations of the first user”
For the above reasons, Examiner believed that rejection of the last Office action was proper and within their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification. See MPEP 2111 [R-1] Interpretation of Claims-Broadest Reasonable Interpretation.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is provisionally withdrawn until the claims have been found to be otherwise allowable.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims 45-48 in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 31-34, 38-41, and 45-48 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20200342853 to Ji et al (hereinafter “Ji”), and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20190087500 to Danyluk et al. (hereinafter “Danyluk”).
As to claim 31, Ji teaches a method comprising (computer implemented method in a system comprising processor and non-transitory computer readable storage medium, Fig. 1, 2, 6A, par. 0013-0015):
determining that a first user is engaged in a conversation about a first topic (Fig. 6A-7, par. 0038-0040, 0053-0056, detect a communication);
identifying a second topic, different from the first topic, that is predicted to be a future topic of the conversation based on the first topic (Fig. 6A-7, par. 0038-0040, 0053-0059, prediction of a topic based on previous communication);
identifying a predicted length of time for the conversation to become about the second topic, wherein the identifying the predicted length of time is based on a plurality of prior conversations of the first user (Fig. 6A-7, par. 0038-0040, 0053-0059, prediction of a topic based on previous communication and elapse time);
the identifying the predicted length of time comprises accessing a conversation stickiness score of the first user (par. 0024, 0044-0047, 0049-0058, predictive metrics for topics of conversation based on history of conversation and duration between topics);
selecting a time offset based on the predicted length of time for the conversation to become about the second topic (Fig. 6A-7, par. 0038-0040, 0053-0059, i.e. “based on the elapsed time since the previous communication. The next topic DS ASR engine is predicted based on the elapsed time since the first communication and historical data of a pattern of communication between the two entities.”);
after the time offset, transmitting a content item related to the second topic for display on a device of the first user (Fig. 6A-7, par. 0038-0040, 0053-0059, content item related to topics for displaying, i.e. “In one example, first entity 304 is a person who comes home from work each day at approximately six o'clock in the evening (i.e., 6 PM). First entity 304 habitually speaks the phrases “hello”, “how was your day?”, and “what should we get for dinner?”. Second entity 306 habitually responds to the series of questions with a greeting, positive adjective, a brief summary of their scientific work, and a restaurant suggestion. Proactively, around 6 PM, at the onset of the habitual conversation, and/or based on GPS 228 location tracking indicating that the first entity has arrived home, processor 205 triggers selection and activation of one or more DS ASR engines 342A-N. DS ASR engines 342A-N have, for example, vocabulary terms that correlate to a greeting response, positive adjectives, and science. Further, in one embodiment, processor 205 executes a device resource that generates restaurant suggestions to display 226. In still another example, second entity 306 leaves the communication and/or location for 30 minutes. In response to detecting the communication between first entity 304 and second entity 306 is restarted (or that a next communication between the two entities begins), processor 205 triggers selection and activation of a next topic DS ASR engine from among the plurality of DS ASR engines within prediction engine 216, in part based on the elapsed time since the previous communication. The next topic DS ASR engine is predicted based on the elapsed time since the first communication and historical data of a pattern of communication between the two entities.”).
Ji teaches the conversation stickiness score is based on a length of a time period before a prior conversation of the first user (Fig. 3-5, par. 0043-0045, 0049-0058, plurality of topics and history of conversations, including duration, transition time between topics; par. 0024, 0044-0047, predictive metrics for topics of conversation based on history of conversation and duration between topics). However, Ji does not explicitly teach calculating a conversation stickiness score of the first user, wherein the conversation stickiness score is calculated based on an average length of time taken by the first user to move between any two topics across all prior conversations of the first user as claimed.
Danyluk teaches calculating a conversation stickiness score of the first user, wherein the conversation stickiness score is calculated based on an average length of time taken by the first user to move between any two topics across all prior conversations of the first user (par. 0058-0059, 0080, average amount of time the conversation topic was discussed. It is noted the length of time for a first topic move to a second topic is the length of time of the first topic. Specifically, the claimed feature is directed toward Specification paragraph 0031, Fig 3 and Fig 4 as followed “"Past Conversation Stickiness Score" may include a length of a time period before a prior conversation (of the user) associated with a first topic becomes associated with a second topic. For example, as shown in the classification table 310, the time between the first topic (class) "Game of Thrones" at time t1 and the second topic (class) "Narcos" at time t6 is the time between time t1 and time t6. A user's "Past Conversation Stickiness Score" may be averaged across all prior conversations of the user, or only certain ones of the prior conversations of the user (e.g., only conversations between the user and another specific user)” . Accordingly, the time between “time t1” and “time t6” is the length of time associated with the first topic, and “Past Conversation Stickiness Score” is the averaged length of time associated with all prior conversations associated with the first topic such as “Game of Thrones”. Danyluk clearly teaches the same feature in at least in par. 0080 “…[0080]…The attributes may further include a timestamp corresponding the last time the conversation topic was discussed. Further, the attributes include an amount of time the conversation topic was discussed in each conversation. Alternatively, or in addition, an average amount of time the conversation topic was discussed is listed”. As such, Danyluk clearly teaches claimed feature “calculating a conversation stickiness score of the first user, wherein the conversation stickiness score is calculated based on an average length of time taken by the first user to move between any two topics across all prior conversations of the first user”.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Ji with the teaching of Danyluk because they are in the same field of endeavor. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have been motivated to do so because the teaching of Danyluk would allow Ji to facilitate “… automatic retrieval and playback of media items based on ongoing and/or recent conversations, such as based on analyzing the user's social media posts, text messages, phone calls, instant messenger messages, etc. and further using the microphone on the user's mobile device (or other devices) to monitor the user's conversations. The media retrieval according to the technical solutions herein further extracts media items that match the topics of conversation even when the user is not actively using a device, such as the mobile phone, or the like…” (Danyluk, par. 0047-0050).
As to claim 32, combination of Ji and Danyluk teaches the method of claim 31, wherein the identifying the second topic comprises: accessing a database of information about a plurality of prior conversations between a plurality of users (Fig. 4, par. 0008, 0023, 0034-0035), wherein the information is classified based on at least one of a determined topic or determined subtopics, a source of the determined topic or determined subtopics, and a time that corresponds to when the determined topic or determined subtopics was first introduced in a prior conversation (Fig. 4, par. 0008, 0023, 0034-0035, 0045-0049); and identifying the second topic based on a plurality of prior conversations in the database that are similar to the conversation about the first topic (Fig. 4, par. 0008, 0023, 0034-0035, 0045-0049, identifying second topics, i.e. “The prediction is in part based on the elapsed time since the at least one most previous communication and based on at least one other context. Processor 205 updates CTDB 252 to include second historical data associated with the subsequent communication occurring at the other time of day. The second historical data comprising a timestamp of the other, different time of day and detected prediction metrics 418 related to the prediction of the second topic. For example, ID 420 includes a specified time and date in the field of time of day 412 for two detected topics of discussion, “breakfast and kids” on multiple different days. Processor 205 advantageously stores various combinations of historical data within CTDB 252 to precisely tune triggering and activation of the more precise DS ASR engine and/or device resource.”).
As to claim 33, combination of Ji and Danyluk teaches the method of claim 32, wherein: the database of information comprises information about the plurality of users comprising at least one of sex, age, viewing history, relationships to other users, or a past stickiness score (par. 0041, relationship).
As to claim 34, combination of Ji and Danyluk teaches the method of claim 32, wherein: the information about the plurality of users is based on information automatically compiled by analyzing prior conversations of the plurality of users and at least one of stored profiles of the plurality of users (Fig. 5, par. 0041, 0050-0056, analyzing prior conversations for plurality of users, including relationship as a profile).
As to claim 36, combination of Ji and Danyluk teaches the method of claim 35, wherein: the conversation stickiness score is based on the average length of time it takes the first user to move between topics in prior conversation of the first user (par. 0024, 0044-0047, predictive metrics for topics of conversation based on history of conversation and duration between topics).
Regarding claims 38-41, are essentially the same as claims 31-34, except that it sets forth the claimed invention as a system rather than a method and rejected for the same reasons as applied hereinabove.
Regarding claims 45-48, are essentially the same as claims 31-34, except that it sets forth the claimed invention as a system rather than a method and rejected for the same reasons as applied hereinabove.
Claim(s) 37 and 44 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Ji, Danyluk, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20200043479 A1 to Mont-Reynaud et al. (hereinafter “Mont-Reynaud”).
As to claim 37, combination of Ji and Danyluk teaches the method of claim 31. The combination of Ji and Danyluk does not explicitly teach wherein the transmitting the content item related to the second topic to the device of the first user comprises: transmitting a search inquiry associated with the second topic; receiving a response including content matching the inquiry; identifying a content item from the received response wherein the identified content item is one of the identified content itself, a URL of the identified content, or an image of the identified content; and transmitting the identified content item to the device of the first user as claimed.
Mont-Reynaud teaches wherein the transmitting the content item related to the second topic to the device of the first user comprises: transmitting a search inquiry associated with the second topic; receiving a response including content matching the inquiry; identifying a content item from the received response wherein the identified content item is one of the identified content itself, a URL of the identified content, or an image of the identified content; and transmitting the identified content item to the device of the first use (Fig. 7-16, par. 0100-0109, identifying and displaying content associated with topic of conversation. Further in Fig. 1,2, par. 153-154, some information can be displayed globally to all persons, and all information is intercepted by device 108, that is also associated with plurality of users).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of combination of Ji and Danyluk with the teaching of Mont-Reynaud because they are in the same field of endeavor. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have been motivated to do so because the teaching of Mont-Reynaud would allow combination of Ji and Danyluk to facilitate “automatically visually presenting information relevant to an utterance… Identified relevant information can be visually displayed also essentially in real-time at a device, such as, for example, during a phone call, a video conference, a game, or an augmented reality experience. The relevance of the information can be anticipated and the relevant information presented by providing relevant information, based on the conversation, just in time. Relevant information automatically appears on a display visible to a person”( Mont-Reynaud, par. 0002-0004, 0035-0037.)
Regarding claim 44, is essentially the same as claim 37, except that it sets forth the claimed invention as a system rather than a method and rejected for the same reasons as applied hereinabove.
Conclusion
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 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 Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANHTAI V TRAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5129. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Thursday from 8:00 AM to 4:00 PM.
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, Charles Rones can be reached on (571)272-4085. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/ANHTAI V TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2168