DETAILED ACTION
This communication is in response to the Amendments and Arguments filed on 05/27/2026.
Claim(s) 21-40 are pending and have been examined.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 10/17/2025 has been entered.
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 .
Response to Arguments and Amendments
Amendments to the claims by the Applicant have been considered and addressed below.
With respect to the 35 USC § 101 rejections, the Applicant provides several arguments in which the Examiner will respond accordingly, below.
35 USC § 112(f) claim interpretation(s)
Even though the Remarks are silent regarding the 112(f) claim interpretations, the Examiner provides a few notes before (as provided in Final Office Action mailed on 04/21/2025 and the Non-final Office Action mailed on 11/28/2025), below.
Examiner’s Response to Arguments:
The 35 USC § 112(f) claim interpretation(s) associated to the limitations of claims 39-40, such as, “means for receiving …, means for determining …, means for using …, means for generating …, means for creating …, means for using …, means for generating …, means for creating …, means for analyzing…, means for generating …, means for calculating…, means for comparing…, means for identifying…,” along with newly added limitations also reciting “means for…” have not been amended or addressed in the arguments. Hence, 35 USC § 112(f) claim interpretation(s) associated to those limitations are maintained.
The Examiner suggests adding details or language in the claim providing structure to the system claim (e.g., storage/memory, processor, etc.)
For more details, please refer to updated 35 USC § 112(f) claim interpretation(s) associated to claims 39-40 below.
35 USC § 101 rejection(s)
Arguments in pages 11-14 of the Remarks filed on 05/24/2025.
The claimed features do not recite a mental process
The claim is directed to a specific technical improvement in computer functionality
The claim recites sufficient structural details and are integrated into a practical application
Examiner’s Response to Arguments:
Applicant’s arguments and amendments associated to the 35 USC § 101 abstract idea type rejections, arguments have been fully considered but these are not persuasive.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the arguments and notes that the same analysis discussed in Non-final Office Action mailed on 11/28/2025 applies. Additionally, considering the newly added limitations to the as amended independent claims, the Examiner notes that the claim is still directed to an abstract idea. Additionally, regarding the technical improvement, the Examiner notes that the claim itself must reflect the disclosed improvement in the technology. As such, if the improvement is not apparent in the specification, it is therefore not reflected in the claim.
Also, the Examiner notes that the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because for example: independent claim(s) 30 and 39 recite “input/output circuitry”, “control circuitry”, and “means for…”. As an example, in ¶ [0070 and 0074] of the as filed specification, it is disclosed: [0070] “… In some embodiments, the circuit boards may include processing circuitry, control circuitry, and storage (e.g., RAM, ROM, Hard Disk, Removable Disk, etc.). In some embodiments, the circuit boards may include an input/output path. More specific implementations of user equipment devices are discussed below in connection with FIG. 6. Each one of user equipment device 600 and user equipment system 601 may receive content and data via input/output ("IO") path 602.I/O path15 602 may provide content (e.g., broadcast programming, on-demand programming, Internet content, content available over a local area network (LAN) or wide area network (WAN), and/or other content) and data to control circuitry 604, which includes processing circuitry 606 and storage 608.” [0074] “…The circuitry described herein, including for example, the tuning, video generating, encoding, decoding, encrypting, decrypting, scaler, and analog/digital circuitry, may be implemented using software running on one or more general purpose or specialized processors.…” Therefore, a general-purpose computer or computing device is described and mainly used as an application thereof. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical idea because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using a computer is listed as a general computing device as noted. The claim is not patent eligible.
Hence, 35 USC § 101 abstract idea rejection(s) of claims 21-40 are maintained.
The Examiner also refers the Applicant to the 2024 Guidance Update on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, Including on Artificial Intelligence (July 2024) for more details.
Lastly, for more details, please refer to updated 35 USC § 101 abstract idea rejection(s) of claims 21-40 below.
Double Patenting Rejection(s)
Arguments:
Claims 21-40 were rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting over claims 1-16 of U.S. Patent No. 11,837,221.
The Applicant respectfully requests the Examiner to reconsider the rejection in light of the current remarks and amendments.
Examiner’s Response to Arguments:
Applicant’s arguments and amendments associated to the Double Patenting Rejection(s) have been fully considered but these are not persuasive.
For more details, please refer to updated Double Patenting rejection(s) of claims 21-40 below.
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.
Claims 39-40 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.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 21-40 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-16 of U.S. Patent No. 11837221.
Please see the claim mapping as well as the claim mappings for the individual claims in the tables below.
Instant Application
Issued Patent/Application
U.S. Application No. 17/187,041
(US 11837221)
Claim mapping
21-22, 30-31, 39-40
1, 3-4 and 9, 11-12
23 and 32
5 and 13
24 and 33
6 and 14
25 and 34
7 and 15
26 and 35
8 and 16
27 and 36
-
28 and 37
-
29 and 38
-
Instant Application
Issued Patent/Application
U.S. Application No. 17/187,041
(US 11837221)
Claim 21:
Claim 1:
21. (New) A method comprising:
training a semantic neural network model that represents words as vectors in a vector space, wherein the semantic neural network model is trained at least in part by updating weights corresponding to the word vectors using a data set comprising previously received user interface queries, contexts of the previously received queries, and subsequently received user interface based modification to the received queries;
generating a knowledge graph comprising nodes associated with semantic concepts and weighted links between the nodes, wherein a weight assigned to a respective weighted link between two nodes reflects a likelihood that the two nodes are associated in a given context;
training a phonetic similarity model using a database of phonetically labeled terms, wherein the phonetic similarity model is trained to assign similarity scores between pairs of terms determined to be phonetically similar based on user feedback indicating commonly mispronounced terms;
receiving a query for a media asset from a user, wherein the query comprises an inputted term and other words;
1. A method comprising:
receiving a query for a media asset, wherein the query comprises an inputted term;
determining that the query was received from a user belonging to the first age group;
identifying a context of the inputted term within the query;
determining that the inputted term of the query is inappropriate for the user;
determining, based on the identified context, whether the inputted term of the query is inappropriate for the first age group;
in response to the determining that the inputted term is inappropriate for the user:
using the trained phonetic similarity model to:
generating a first replacement term for the inputted term, wherein the first replacement term is phonetically similar to the inputted term;
creating a first modified input with the first replacement term and the other words;
using the generated knowledge graph and the trained semantic neural network model to:
generating a second replacement term for the inputted term, wherein the second replacement term is semantically similar to the inputted term,
wherein the second replacement term is identified using a model which is trained using a data set comprising previously received user interface queries and subsequently received user interface based modification to the received queries;
in response to the determining that the inputted term of the query is inappropriate for the first age group:
training a first machine learning model to accept as input a first query from a user belonging to a first age group and a context of a term within the first query and output a first replacement term, wherein the term within the first query is inappropriate for the first age group within the context of the first query;
identifying a replacement term for the inputted term that (a) is related to the inputted term and (b) is appropriate for the first age group in the context of the query, wherein the identifying the replacement term for the inputted term comprises:
inputting the query and the context of the inputted term within the context of the query into each of the first machine learning model and the second machine learning model to output a first replacement term semantically similar to the inputted term and
a second replacement term phonetically similar to the inputted term from the first machine learning model and the second machine learning model, respectively;
training a second machine learning model to accept as input the first query and the context of the term within the first query, and output a second replacement term;
creating a second modified input with the second replacement term and the other words; and
inputting the query and the context of the inputted term within the context of the query into each of the first machine learning model and the second machine learning model to output a first replacement term semantically similar to the inputted term and a second replacement term phonetically similar to the inputted term from the first machine learning model and the second machine learning model, respectively;
analyzing the first modified input and the second modified input to select one of the first modified input or the second modified input as a selected query appropriate for the user; and
comparing a confidence score of the first replacement term to a confidence score of the second replacement term; and
identifying the replacement term as the first replacement term or the second replacement term based on the comparing;
modifying the query to replace the inputted term with the identified replacement term; and
generating for output search results using the selected query.
generating for output a reply to the modified query.
Claim 22:
Claim 1 (cont’d):
22. (New) The method of claim 21,
wherein the analyzing the first modified input and the second modified input comprises:
calculating a confidence score of the first modified input and a confidence score of the second modified input based on which respective replacement term is more closely related to viewing preferences of a user profile;
comparing a confidence score of the first replacement term to a confidence score of the second replacement term; and
comparing the confidence score of the first modified input to the confidence score of the second modified input,
wherein the confidence score is a measure of likelihood that an associated modified input is suitable to replace the received query; and
comparing a confidence score of the first replacement term to a confidence score of the second replacement term; and
modifying the query to replace the inputted term with the identified replacement term; and
identifying the selected query as the first modified input or the second modified input based on the comparing.
identifying the replacement term as the first replacement term or the second replacement term based on the comparing;
*Note: Main differences between instant application and issued patent/application are underlined/strikethrough.
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 21-40 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. More specifically directed to the abstract idea grouping of: mental process.
The independent claims 21, 30 and 39 recite:
training a semantic neural network model that represents words as vectors in a vector space, wherein the semantic neural network model is trained at least in part by updating weights corresponding to the word vectors using a data set comprising previously received user interface queries, contexts of the previously received queries, and subsequently received user interface based modification to the received queries;
generating a knowledge graph comprising nodes associated with semantic concepts and weighted links between the nodes, wherein a weight assigned to a respective weighted link between two nodes reflects a likelihood that the two nodes are associated in a given context;
training a phonetic similarity model using a database of phonetically labeled terms, wherein the phonetic similarity model is trained to assign similarity scores between pairs of terms determined to be phonetically similar based on user feedback indicating commonly mispronounced terms;
receiving a query for a media asset from a user, wherein the query comprises an inputted term and other words;
determining that the inputted term of the query is inappropriate for the user;
in response to the determining that the inputted term is inappropriate for the user:
using the trained phonetic similarity model to:
generating a first replacement term for the inputted term, wherein the first replacement term is phonetically similar to the inputted term;
creating a first modified input with the first replacement term and the other words;
using the generated knowledge graph and the trained semantic neural network model to:
generating a second replacement term for the inputted term, wherein the second replacement term is semantically similar to the inputted term;
creating a second modified input with the second replacement term and the other words; and
analyzing the first modified input and the second modified input to select one of the first modified input or the second modified input as a selected query appropriate for the user; and
generating for output search results using the selected query.
This reads on a human (e.g., by pen and paper):
update/redefining a predetermined set of steps (i.e., semantic NN model) to represent words as vectors, wherein the updating/redefining is performed by updating weights corresponding to the vectors using data previously received;
generating graph using a predetermined set of steps comprising nodes associated with semantic concepts and weights, wherein the weight reflects likelihood of association (e.g., context);
update/redefining a predetermined set of steps (i.e., phonetic similarity model) using predefined data, wherein the predetermined set of steps are updated to assign similarity scores to pairs of terms/words based on another human’s feedback indicating commonly mispronounced words;
receiving a request (e.g., spoken or written) from a second human;
determining if request is inappropriate (e.g., language/words) for the second human;
in response to that determination:
using the updated/redefined predetermined set of steps (i.e., phonetic similarity model trained) to:
write down a replacement word for the request that sounds similar to received word (i.e., in the request) and
replace said word;
using predetermined set of steps (i.e., graph with nodes and weighted links and the updated/redefined semantic NN model) to:
write down a second replacement word for the request that sounds similar to received word (i.e., in the request) using predetermined set of steps (i.e., model trained) and
replace said second word
wherein the predetermined set of steps (i.e., model trained) is predefined and/or updated using previously received words (i.e., previous requests/questions) and their corresponding modifications/replacements.
analyze both options for replacement and choose one of the replacements
answering the request based on the replacement.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because for example: independent claim(s) 30 and 39 recite “input/output circuitry”, “control circuitry”, and “means for…”. As an example, in ¶ [0070 and 0074] of the as filed specification, it is disclosed: [0070] “… In some embodiments, the circuit boards may include processing circuitry, control circuitry, and storage (e.g., RAM, ROM, Hard Disk, Removable Disk, etc.). In some embodiments, the circuit boards may include an input/output path. More specific implementations of user equipment devices are discussed below in connection with FIG. 6. Each one of user equipment device 600 and user equipment system 601 may receive content and data via input/output ("IO") path 602.I/O path15 602 may provide content (e.g., broadcast programming, on-demand programming, Internet content, content available over a local area network (LAN) or wide area network (WAN), and/or other content) and data to control circuitry 604, which includes processing circuitry 606 and storage 608.” [0074] “…The circuitry described herein, including for example, the tuning, video generating, encoding, decoding, encrypting, decrypting, scaler, and analog/digital circuitry, may be implemented using software running on one or more general purpose or specialized processors.…” Therefore, a general-purpose computer or computing device is described and mainly used as an application thereof. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical idea because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using a computer is listed as a general computing device as noted. The claim is not patent eligible.
With respect to claims 22 and 31, the claims recite:
wherein the analyzing the first modified input and the second modified input comprises:
calculating a confidence score of the first modified input and a confidence score of the second modified input based on which respective replacement term is more closely related to viewing preferences of a user profile;
comparing the confidence score of the first modified input to the confidence score of the second modified input, wherein the confidence score is a measure of likelihood that an associated modified input is suitable to replace the received query; and
identifying the selected query as the first modified input or the second modified input based on the comparing.
This reads on a human (e.g., by pen and paper):
wherein analyzing both options for replacement includes
calculating a confidence score based on predetermined set of rules
comparing the scores
selecting the replacement based on the comparison.
No additional limitations are present.
With respect to claims 23 and 32, the claims recite:
wherein the determining that the inputted term of the query is inappropriate for the user comprises parsing each respective term of the query and marking each respective term as either appropriate for the user or inappropriate for the user.
This reads on a human (e.g., by pen and paper):
determining if the query is appropriate or not for the second human’s age:
segmenting every word from the received spoken request and labeling each as appropriate or not for a particular age.
No additional limitations are present.
With respect to claims 24 and 33, the claims recite:
wherein the determining that the inputted term of the query is inappropriate for the user comprises:
identifying a context of the inputted term of the query; and
determining that the inputted term matches a term in a list of terms marked as inappropriate for the user in the identified context.
This reads on a human (e.g., by pen and paper):
determining if the query is appropriate or not for the second human’s age:
determining if a received term matches a term in a predetermined list of terms classified as inappropriate for a particular age in a particular context.
No additional limitations are present.
With respect to claims 25 and 34, the claims recite:
wherein the list of terms marked as inappropriate for the user in the identified context comprises a list of commonly misused terms by other users in a similar age group as the user in the identified context.
This reads on a human (e.g., by pen and paper):
determining if the query is appropriate or not for the second human’s age based on commonly misused terms by users in a particular age group (e.g., kids).
No additional limitations are present.
With respect to claims 26 and 35, the claims recite:
wherein the list of terms marked as inappropriate for the user in the identified context comprises a list of commonly mispronounced terms by other users in a similar age group as the user in the identified context.
This reads on a human (e.g., by pen and paper):
determining if the query is appropriate or not for the second human’s age:
based on commonly mispronounced terms by users in a particular age group (e.g., kids).
No additional limitations are present.
With respect to claims 27 and 34, the claims recite:
determining an age of the user by:
analyzing one or more audio characteristics, images detected by a sensor and a user profile, wherein the one or more audio characteristics comprise a word tone, a word pitch, a word emphasis, a word duration, a voice alteration and a volume and a speed;
comparing the one or more analyzed audio characteristics to a database storing an association between audio characteristics and corresponding age groups;
identifying audio characteristics in the database having a closest match to the analyzed audio characteristics; and
determining that the user is within an age group associated with the analyzed audio characteristics determined to be the closest match; and
comparing the age of the user to a context of the inputted term of the query to determine that the inputted term of the query is inappropriate for the user.
This reads on a human (e.g., by pen and paper):
determining if the second human’s age:
based on voice characteristics or image or user description/profile
comparing characteristics with predefined/learned characteristics
identifying a closest match
determining a range of age
comparing the age with the context of the request.
No additional limitations are present.
With respect to claims 28 and 37, the claims recite:
receiving feedback in response to outputting search results using the selected query, wherein the feedback comprises a rating of the output search result or likes and dislikes of the output search result.
This reads on a human (e.g., by pen and paper):
receiving feedback from the second human regarding the response or answer (e.g., rating, like, dislike).
No additional limitations are present.
With respect to claims 29 and 38, the claims recite:
wherein the feedback comprises post-output user activity metrics, and wherein the post-output user activity metrics comprises whether the user consumed a threshold amount of one or more of the search results output to the user or whether the user immediately exited out of a media application after receiving the output search results.
This reads on a human (e.g., by pen and paper):
receiving feedback from the second human regarding the response or answer (e.g., based on actions from the second human – lack of interaction or exiting).
No additional limitations are present.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 21-40 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten to overcome 35 USC § 112(f) claim interpretation(s) and 35 USC § 101 rejections and if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The closest prior art of record Ingel et al. (US 20200213680 A1) and further in view of Du (US 20210160230 A1) teach all of the limitations as previously mapped in the Action mailed on 09/09/2024 with respect to independent claim(s) 21, 30, and 39.
However, none of the cited Prior arts alone or in combination disclose the claim language as amended.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Keisha Y Castillo-Torres whose telephone number is (571)272-3975. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 am - 4:00 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, Pierre-Louis Desir can be reached on (571)272-7799. 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.
Keisha Y. Castillo-Torres
Examiner
Art Unit 2659
/Keisha Y. Castillo-Torres/Examiner, Art Unit 2659
/PIERRE LOUIS DESIR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2659
Prosecution Insights