DETAILED ACTION
This communication is in response to the Amendments and Arguments filed on 10/17/2025.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 thought 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), 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…, and means for identifying…” have not been amended or mentioned 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:
Claims 21-40 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. This rejection is respectfully traversed.
In particular, the Office Action's asserts that the Applicant's claims can be "directed to the abstract idea grouping of: mental process... and reads on a human (e.g., by pen and paper)." See Office Action, p. 13.
A recent USPTO memorandum published August 4, 2025, reminds examiners to limit "reliance on the mental process grouping of abstract ideas." See USPTO Memorandum "Reminders on Evaluating Subject Matter Eligibility of Claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101," available at [link]. In particular, the memorandum states that "a claim does not recite a mental process when it contains limitation(s) that cannot practically be performed in the human mind, for instance when the human mind is not equipped to perform the claim limitation(s)." Id.
Claims 21 (and similarly claim 30) plainly recite, as amended, such limitations, for
example: (1) using a phonetic similarity model trained using a database of phonetically labeled terms to generate a replacement term for an inputted term and create a first modified input; (2) using a knowledge graph, wherein the knowledge graph comprises nodes associated with semantic concepts and weighted links between the nodes to: generate a second replacement term for the inputted term; and (3) 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. These steps are machine-implemented computations that cannot be practically performed in the human mind or by pen and paper. They require large scale hardware for storing and analyzing data structures, weights, and training parameters to create appropriate models trained in the way mentioned above. Such hardware capable of model training that can practically exist in a computerized environment is not human, nor is any such hardware known to have practically trained a machine learning model using only the human brain or pen and paper.
It is not practical for a human to construct, store, or operate on a knowledge graph of semantic relationships with weighted links and user-interaction training data, nor to simulate a phonetic model trained on a labeled phoneme database. Such operations require specialized machine-learning infrastructure and massive data processing that the human mind is not equipped to perform "in a way that would yield meaningful results." See Id. The memorandum emphasizes that examiners should "not expand this grouping in a manner that encompasses claim limitations that cannot practically be performed in the human mind."
For at least these reasons, Applicant respectfully submits that each of amended independent claims 21 and 30 is patentable and requests a withdrawal of the rejection.
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 regarding limitations being “steps [that] are machine-implemented computations that cannot be practically performed in the human mind or by pen and paper” and notes that the limitations of:
(1) using a phonetic similarity model trained using a database of phonetically labeled terms to generate a replacement term for an inputted term and create a first modified input;
(2) using a knowledge graph, wherein the knowledge graph comprises nodes associated with semantic concepts and weighted links between the nodes to: generate a second replacement term for the inputted term; and
(3) 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 read on a human:
(1) using a 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 to replace said word;
Example: A parent getting asked by a child a question comprising a word that is not expected or appropriate for the child’s age (e.g., “Can I get a beer?” instead of “Can I get a bear?”). The parent is able to replace/correct the child’s (i.e., mispronounced) word with a word that is phonetically similar (i.e., sounding similar).
(2) using a predetermined set of steps (i.e., graph with nodes and weighted links) to write down a second replacement word for the request that sounds similar to received word (i.e., in the request) and to replace said second word;
Example: The parent writing down (e.g., in a list, graph, tree, diagram, etc.) semantic concepts (e.g., categories, topics, etc.) gathered from the context of the conversation or environment and assigning weights, importance or probability for the replacement/correct word to be correct (e.g., chance of the child referring to a bear instead of a beer when visiting the bear exhibit at a local Zoo). The parent is able to relate the child’s (i.e., mispronounced) word (e.g., “beer” [Wingdings font/0xE0] “bear”) with a semantic concept (e.g., categories, topics, etc.) from the written down list, graph, tree, or diagram, such as, “stuffed animals / toys” (e.g., “bear stuffed animal”).
(3) using a predetermined set of steps (i.e., model trained) to identify the second replacement word for the request that sounds similar to received word (i.e., in the request), 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.
Example: More specifically, the parent uses historical conversations (e.g., conversations with the child in the past associated with mispronunciations and stuffed animals / toys). So, the parent is able to relate the child’s (i.e., mispronounced) word (e.g., “beer” [Wingdings font/0xE0] “bear”) with a semantic concept (e.g., categories, topics, etc.) from the written down list, graph, tree, or diagram, such as, “stuffed animals / toys” (e.g., “bear stuffed animal”).
In other words, following a set of predetermined steps to perform the limitations recited in the as drafted claims and as very similarly discussed in the Non-final Office Action mailed on 09/09/2024 and Final Office Action mailed on 04/21/2025.
The Examiner notes that more details regarding the training of both the phonetic similarity model and the trained model used for identifying the second replacement term would be needed (e.g., how is it trained, what are the inputs to the model(s), what are the output(s) of the model(s), etc.).
Additionally, the Examiner respectfully disagree with the arguments associated with the “recent USPTO memorandum published August 4, 2025, remind[ing] examiners to limit "reliance on the mental process grouping of abstract ideas." […] In particular, […] that "a claim does not recite a mental process when it contains limitation(s) that cannot practically be performed in the human mind, for instance when the human mind is not equipped to perform the claim limitation(s)." Id. …” and with “These steps are machine-implemented computations that cannot be practically performed in the human mind or by pen and paper. […] Such hardware capable of model training that can practically exist in a computerized environment is not human, nor is any such hardware known to have practically trained a machine learning model using only the human brain or pen and paper. It is not practical for a human to construct, store, or operate on a knowledge graph of semantic relationships with weighted links and user-interaction training data, nor to simulate a phonetic model trained on a labeled phoneme database. Such operations require specialized machine-learning infrastructure and massive data processing that the human mind is not equipped to perform "in a way that would yield meaningful results." See Id. The memorandum emphasizes that examiners should "not expand this grouping in a manner that encompasses claim limitations that cannot practically be performed in the human mind." ”
The Examiners refers the Applicant to the discussion above regarding the steps and how these are interpreted to be performed by a human. Also, the Examiner notes that the 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.
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 was/were rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting over claims 1-16 of U.S. Patent No. 11,837,221.
Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the double patenting rejection in view of the amendments made herein.
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.
For more details, please refer to updated Double Patenting rejection(s) of claims 21-40 below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 10/30/2023 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
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.
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:
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 a phonetic similarity model trained using a database of phonetically labeled terms 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 a knowledge graph, wherein the knowledge graph comprises nodes associated with semantic concepts and weighted links between the nodes 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:
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 a phonetic similarity model trained using a database of phonetically labeled terms 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 a knowledge graph, wherein the knowledge graph comprises nodes associated with semantic concepts and weighted links between the nodes 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;
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):
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 a 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 a predetermined set of steps (i.e., graph with nodes and weighted links) 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
Examiner Notes
The Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims above for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the Applicant fully considers the references in its entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or as disclosed by the Examiner.
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