Detailed Action
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination under 37 C.F.R. § 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 C.F.R. § 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 C.F.R. § 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on March 13, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
This Non-Final Office action is responsive to the Request for Continued Examination filed on March 13, 2026 (hereafter “Response”). The amendments to the claims are acknowledged and have been entered.
Claims 1, 8, 9, 15, and 19 are now amended.
Claim 10 is now canceled.
Claims 1–9 and 11–20 are pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Claims 1–8 and 11–20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0185823 A1 (“Seligmann”). The Applicant’s remarks have been considered, but are not persuasive.
Specifically, the Applicant points to two portions of Seligmann cited in the last Office Action, and explains why those two portions merely disclose simple inputs or selections, rather than the now-claimed classifications for identifying topics of interest. (Response 8). However, the Applicant fails to address a third portion of Seligmann’s disclosure concerning “search objects,” which were also cited in the rejection, and which do in fact disclose the now-claimed act of classifying “utterances or messages by the plurality of users within the virtual environment as being related to one or more topics” for the reasons set forth in the rejection below (as well as the previous Office Action). Similarly, the behavior of these search objects also falls within the scope of the now-claimed response action for the reasons set forth in the rejection below.
The rejection of claim 9 based on Seligmann and Ali under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is hereby withdrawn, responsive to the change in scope introduced by the amendment. However, this change in scope necessitates two grounds of rejection: one for the new matter in the amendment under 35 U.S.C. § 112, and another for the obviousness of the invention over Seligmann in view of newly cited prior art. Those rejections are set forth herein.
For at least these reasons, the claims stand rejected, and the Applicant’s requests for a notice of allowance (Response 10) is respectfully denied.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
At a minimum, there is sufficient evidence for prima facie case for new matter simply because the amendment to claim 9 was presented together with remarks that fail to point to any part of the specification in support of any of the amendments (let alone the amendment to claim 9). See MPEP § 2163.04 (subsection I.).
Additionally, a review of the specification confirms the lack of support for the amendment to claim 9. Specifically, the amendment narrows the scope of the classifications performed in claim 9 to “utterances and messages,” rather than the more broadly recited “interactions” in the original version of the claim. In contrast, the specification confirms that the CNN, CNN-LSTM, and ViT are only “trained to recognize images, including those within video, that may be interesting to a user based on analysis of other images or of image topics like a style of painting (e.g., impressionist).” (Spec. ¶ 27) (emphasis added).
Images are not “utterances” or “messages” within the context of the present application. It is not clear how these models, which the Applicant allegedly configured to process images, would work on audio, text, or any other representation of natural language.
Accordingly, claim 9 is rejected for reciting new matter.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. § 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1–8 and 11–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0185823 A1 (“Seligmann”).
Claim 1
Seligmann discloses:
One or more computer-readable storage media comprising instructions that when executed by processing circuitry cause the processing circuitry to:
“Embodiments within the scope of the present disclosure may [] include tangible and/or non-transitory computer-readable storage media for carrying or having computer-executable instructions or data structures stored thereon.” Seligmann ¶ 68. “Computer-executable instructions, associated data structures, and program modules represent examples of the program code means for executing steps of the methods disclosed herein.” Seligmann ¶ 68.
instantiate a virtual environment comprising a virtual two-dimensional or three-dimensional space in which a plurality of users can interact;
“The system 100 generates a three-dimensional sound space having a plurality of sound sources playing at a same time, wherein each of the plurality of sound sources is assigned a respective location in the three-dimensional sound space relative to one another, and wherein a user is assigned a current location in the three-dimensional sound space relative to each respective location (700). The plurality of sound sources can include . . . a live communication session, a recorded conversation, etc.” Seligmann ¶ 55.
classify utterances or messages by the plurality of users within the virtual environment as being related to one or more topics;
Sound sources in the three-dimensional sound space may be assigned “tags” that classify them as being related them to at least one topic (e.g., “customer complaints”) or concerning a particular user (e.g. “Bob”). Seligmann ¶ 66. Sound sources may also be classified into different “groupings” that are “based on a topic, a relevance, a search request, a category, a level of detail, a ranking, a rating, a term, a title, a length, a creator, an identity, an age, an association, specific content, and/or other factors.” Seligmann ¶ 58.
identify a topic of interest for a particular user in the utterances or messages based on a topics of interest model for the particular user;
The user may select one or more “search objects” (the claimed topics of interest model) in order to instruct the system to search for sound sources that correspond to the topics identified in the search objects. Seligmann ¶ 66.
and cause a response action to be initiated in a local execution of the virtual environment presented to the particular user based on the identified topic of interest, wherein the response action includes modifying an audio or visual aspect associated with the utterance or message presented to the user.
“In one example, the user can select the search object ‘Bob’ in the system 100. In response, all the conversations that relate to Bob can attach themselves to the object representing Bob in the three-dimensional sound space. The user can then select ‘customer complaints,’ which causes an object representing the tag ‘customer complaint’ to be introduced into the three-dimensional sound space. The conversations that have been tagged ‘customer complaint’ can then self-arrange around the ‘customer complaint’ tag object. Those conversations that are tagged ‘customer complaint’ and also involve Bob can attach to both the Bob object and the ‘customer complaint’ tag object, and group together.” Seligmann ¶ 66.
Claim 2
Seligmann discloses the computer-readable storage media of claim 1, wherein the instructions are further to
cause the response action to be initiated based on a context of the particular user in the virtual environment.
“Based on the input, the system 100 then changes each respective location of the plurality of sound sources relative to the new location in the three-dimensional sound space (704).” Seligmann ¶ 62. “The sound sources in the new three-dimensional sound space can be arranged or grouped based on one or more factors, such as similarities, differences, age, topics, rankings, ratings, etc. The user can select the sound source from the three-dimensional sound space by moving toward the sound source in the three-dimensional sound space, clicking on a graphical representation of the sound source in an interface, navigating towards the sound source using a navigation device or button, gesturing to select the sound source, gesturing to indicate a motion towards the sound source, etc.” Seligmann ¶ 63.
Claim 3
Seligmann discloses the computer-readable storage media of claim 2,
wherein the context of the particular user includes one or more of a location of the particular user within the virtual environment, a vicinity of the particular user with respect to other users within the virtual environment, or an orientation of the particular user within the virtual environment.
“FIG. 6 illustrates an example user experience in a three-dimensional sound space with multiple sound sources. Here, the user's experience navigating a three-dimensional sound space is illustrated by reference to what the user 602 perceives when navigating a college building 600 . . . . Further, the user 602 can go inside a classroom to bring the lecture from that classroom into focus. For example, the user 602 can enter the classroom C to bring the history lecture into focus. This will cause the other lectures to fade out and/or dim. If the user 602 moves to position 2, she will affect the sound she perceives by changing her location relative to the different sound sources. For example, at position 2, the user 602 will be closer to the classroom E and farther away from the classrooms A and B than she was at position 1. Thus, by moving to position 2, the user 602 will bring the lecture from classroom E into focus, and will cause the lectures from classrooms A and B to fade out and/or dim.” Seligmann ¶ 51.
Claim 4
Seligmann discloses the computer-readable storage media of claim 1, wherein the instructions are further to
cause the response action to be initiated based on a behavior of the particular user.
“[T]he system 100 receives input from the user to navigate to a new location in the three-dimensional sound space (702),” Seligmann ¶ 60, and “[b]ased on the input, the system 100 then changes each respective location of the plurality of sound sources relative to the new location in the three-dimensional sound space (704).” Seligmann ¶ 62.
Claim 5
Seligmann discloses the computer-readable storage media of claim 4,
wherein the behavior of the particular user includes one or more of a voice volume of the particular user, a gesture made by the particular user, or a position of the user with respect to a sensor of a device instantiating the local execution of the virtual environment that is presented to the particular user.
“The input [received at 702] can be text, audio, a gesture, a movement, a selection, a click, an event, a signal from an input device, a command, a request, a query, an instruction, a motion, an input from a software control, etc. For example, the user can use an input device, such as a joystick, to navigate to the new location in the three-dimensional sound space. As another example, the user can navigate to the new location by physically moving in the direction of the new location, as perceived by the user in the three-dimensional sound space.” Seligmann ¶ 60.
Claim 6
Seligmann discloses the computer-readable storage media of claim 1, wherein the instructions are further to
cause the response action to be initiated based on a priority indication for the identified topic of interest.
“As the user navigates the three-dimensional sound space, the plurality of sound sources can dynamically self-arrange based on groupings, categories, rules, rankings, ratings, similarities, user input, context, metadata, size, sound quality, source type, etc. For example, the plurality of sound sources can dynamically self-arrange according to groupings based on a topic, a relevance, a search request, an association, a term, content, etc.” Seligmann ¶ 62.
Claim 7
Seligmann discloses the computer-readable storage media of claim 1, wherein the instructions are further to
select the response action to be initiated from a set of response actions.
If the input at 702 is an input to move the user within the environment, then the system 100’s response at 704 is to “dynamically arrange the plurality of sound sources based on the new location to simulate the user's movement through the three-dimensional sound space.” Seligmann ¶ 62.
If the input at 702 is an input of the user selecting a particular sound, then the system 100’s response at 704 is to “generate[] a new three-dimensional sound space based on sound sources related to the selected sound source.” Seligmann ¶ 63.
If the input at 702 is an input of the user selecting or inputting a “search object,” then the system 100’s response at 704 is to produce an arrangement wherein “the objects move towards the terms that they are associated with, and those objects with no associations can fall to the ground.” Seligmann ¶ 65.
Claim 8
Seligmann discloses the computer-readable storage media of claim 1, wherein the instructions are to
classify interaction or identify topics of interest using one of a Latent Dirichlet Allocation (LDA), a large language model (LLM), a natural language processing (NLP) model, and a non-negative matrix factorization (NMF) model.
Among the four alternatives listed in claim 8, Seligmann at least discloses using an NLP model, thereby disclosing “using one of” the foregoing four alternatives. Specifically, “the plurality of sound sources can be assigned locations based on their differences, their similarities, their relative relevance to the user, their ranking, their age, their date, their topic(s), their rating, their level of detail and/or granularity, etc.” Seligmann ¶ 58 (emphasis added). Likewise, the sound space may be organized “according to a setting, a preference, a rule, a similarity, a relevance, a criteria, a ranking, a rating, an age, a user input, a history, a context, a topic, a level of detail and/or granularity, etc.” Seligmann ¶ 59 (emphasis added).
Claim 11
Seligmann discloses the computer-readable storage media of claim 10,
wherein the response action includes reorienting a display of the virtual environment presented to the particular user.
“FIG. 6 illustrates an example user experience in a three-dimensional sound space with multiple sound sources. Here, the user's experience navigating a three-dimensional sound space is illustrated by reference to what the user 602 perceives when navigating a college building 600 . . . . Further, the user 602 can go inside a classroom to bring the lecture from that classroom into focus. For example, the user 602 can enter the classroom C to bring the history lecture into focus. This will cause the other lectures to fade out and/or dim. If the user 602 moves to position 2, she will affect the sound she perceives by changing her location relative to the different sound sources. For example, at position 2, the user 602 will be closer to the classroom E and farther away from the classrooms A and B than she was at position 1. Thus, by moving to position 2, the user 602 will bring the lecture from classroom E into focus, and will cause the lectures from classrooms A and B to fade out and/or dim.” Seligmann ¶ 51.
Claim 12
Seligmann discloses the computer-readable storage media of claim 1, wherein the instructions are further to
obtain feedback from the user related to the initiated response action and modify a set of system response actions based on the feedback.
After responding to a user’s search action, “[t]he user can continue to refine the search” with subsequent refinements, causing the system 100 to output a narrower set of results. Seligmann ¶ 66. For example, responsive to a search for “Bob,” “all the conversations that relate to Bob can attach themselves to the object representing Bob in the three-dimensional sound space. The user can then select ‘customer complaints,’ which causes an object representing the tag ‘customer complaint’ to be introduced into the three-dimensional sound space.” Seligmann ¶ 66.
Claim 13
Seligmann discloses the computer-readable storage media of claim 1, wherein the instructions are further to
generate the topics of interest model based on audio, visual, or textual content associated with the particular user.
In the case of the user selecting a sound source, “the user can be assigned a location relative to the sound sources and associated with the sound source.” Seligmann ¶ 63. In the case of the “search object,” the system 100 can run a query to find sound objects that are relevant to the user’s query. Seligmann ¶¶ 65–66.
In either case, “the plurality of sound sources can be assigned locations based on their differences, their similarities, their relative relevance to the user, their ranking, their age, their date, their topic(s), their rating, their level of detail and/or granularity, etc.” Seligmann ¶ 58. Likewise, the sound space may be organized “according to a setting, a preference, a rule, a similarity, a relevance, a criteria, a ranking, a rating, an age, a user input, a history, a context, a topic, a level of detail and/or granularity, etc.” Seligmann ¶ 59.
Claim 14
Seligmann discloses the computer-readable storage media of claim 13,
wherein the audio, visual, or textual content associated with the particular user is stored on a device instantiating the local execution of the virtual environment presented to the particular user.
As shown in FIG. 1, the input device 190 that provides the input mentioned in the earlier rejection is part of the same local system as the processor 120 that executes the modules 162–166 responsible for creating the virtual environment. See Seligmann ¶¶ 25–26 and 28.
Claims 15–18
Claims 15 and 17–18 are directed to the same method that the computer readable storage media of claims 1, 10, and 11 cause a processor to perform as part of its normal operation. Therefore, the methods in claims 15 and 17–18 are rejected over the same findings and rationale as provided above for claims 1, 10, and 11.
Claim 16 is directed to the same method that the computer readable storage media from any one of claims 2, 4, and 6 causes a processor to perform as part of its normal operation. Therefore, claim 16 is rejected over the findings from any one or more of claims 2, 4, and/or 6.
Claim 19
Seligmann discloses:
A system comprising: one or more host computing devices to instantiate a virtual environment comprising a virtual two-dimensional or three-dimensional space in which a plurality of users can interact;
“The present disclosure provides a way to generate an immersive three-dimensional sound space. A system, method and computer-readable media are disclosed which generate an immersive three-dimensional sound space for audio searching.” Seligmann ¶ 24.
“With reference to FIG. 1, an example system includes a general-purpose computing device 100, including a processing unit (CPU or processor) 120 and a system bus 110 that couples various system components including the system memory 130 such as read only memory (ROM) 140 and random access memory (RAM) 150 to the processor 120.” Seligmann ¶ 25. “The logical operations of the various embodiments are implemented as: (1) a sequence of computer implemented steps, operations, or procedures running on a programmable circuit within a general use computer, (2) a sequence of computer implemented steps, operations, or procedures running on a specific-use programmable circuit; and/or (3) interconnected machine modules or program engines within the programmable circuits.” Seligmann ¶ 30.
and a plurality of user devices connected to the one or more host computing devices over a network, each user device to instantiate a local execution of the virtual environment; wherein each user device is to:
“The computing device 100 shown in FIG. 1 can practice all or part of the recited methods [or] can be a part of the recited systems.” Seligmann ¶ 30. With respect to the latter, Seligmann further discloses that “[e]mbodiments may also be practiced in distributed computing environments where tasks are performed by local and remote processing devices that are linked (either by hardwired links, wireless links, or by a combination thereof) through a communications network.” Seligmann ¶ 69. Under this arrangement, “the three-dimensional sound space 300,” which will be discussed in the rest of this rejection, “can be searched, browsed, and/or navigated by a group of users.” Seligmann ¶ 42.
classify interactions by the plurality of users within the virtual environment;
“Next, the system 100 receives input from the user to navigate to a new location in the three-dimensional sound space (702).” Seligmann ¶ 60.
As an example, the system 100 can recognize that the user has “use[d] an input device, such as a joystick, to navigate to the new location in the three-dimensional sound space. As another example, the user can navigate to the new location by physically moving in the direction of the new location, as perceived by the user in the three-dimensional sound space.” Seligmann ¶ 60.
As yet another example, rather than interpreting the user input as movement, system 100 can determine when it “receive[s] a user selection of a sound source from the three-dimensional sound space.” Seligmann ¶ 63.
As yet another example, rather than interpreting the user input as movement or sound source selection, system 100 may detect that the user selected a “search object.” Seligmann ¶ 66.
identify a topic of interest for a particular user in the interactions classified based on a topics of interest model for the particular user;
In the case of the user selecting a sound source, “the user can be assigned a location relative to the sound sources and associated with the sound source.” Seligmann ¶ 63. In the case of the “search object,” the system 100 can run a query to find sound objects that are relevant to the user’s query. Seligmann ¶¶ 65–66.
In either case, “the plurality of sound sources can be assigned locations based on their differences, their similarities, their relative relevance to the user, their ranking, their age, their date, their topic(s), their rating, their level of detail and/or granularity, etc.” Seligmann ¶ 58. Likewise, the sound space may be organized “according to a setting, a preference, a rule, a similarity, a relevance, a criteria, a ranking, a rating, an age, a user input, a history, a context, a topic, a level of detail and/or granularity, etc.” Seligmann ¶ 59.
and cause a response action to be initiated in the local execution of the virtual environment presented to the particular user based on the identified topic of interest.
“Based on the input, the system 100 then changes each respective location of the plurality of sound sources relative to the new location in the three-dimensional sound space (704).” Seligmann ¶ 62. “The sound sources in the new three-dimensional sound space can be arranged or grouped based on one or more factors, such as similarities, differences, age, topics, rankings, ratings, etc. The user can select the sound source from the three-dimensional sound space by moving toward the sound source in the three-dimensional sound space, clicking on a graphical representation of the sound source in an interface, navigating towards the sound source using a navigation device or button, gesturing to select the sound source, gesturing to indicate a motion towards the sound source, etc.” Seligmann ¶ 63.
Claim 20
Seligmann discloses the system of claim 19,
wherein each user device is to cause the response action to be initiated based on at least one of context of the particular user in the virtual environment,
“Based on the input, the system 100 then changes each respective location of the plurality of sound sources relative to the new location in the three-dimensional sound space (704).” Seligmann ¶ 62. “The sound sources in the new three-dimensional sound space can be arranged or grouped based on one or more factors, such as similarities, differences, age, topics, rankings, ratings, etc. The user can select the sound source from the three-dimensional sound space by moving toward the sound source in the three-dimensional sound space, clicking on a graphical representation of the sound source in an interface, navigating towards the sound source using a navigation device or button, gesturing to select the sound source, gesturing to indicate a motion towards the sound source, etc.” Seligmann ¶ 63.
a behavior of the particular user,
“[T]he system 100 receives input from the user to navigate to a new location in the three-dimensional sound space (702),” Seligmann ¶ 60, and “[b]ased on the input, the system 100 then changes each respective location of the plurality of sound sources relative to the new location in the three-dimensional sound space (704).” Seligmann ¶ 62.
and a priority indication for the identified topic of interest.
“As the user navigates the three-dimensional sound space, the plurality of sound sources can dynamically self-arrange based on groupings, categories, rules, rankings, ratings, similarities, user input, context, metadata, size, sound quality, source type, etc. For example, the plurality of sound sources can dynamically self-arrange according to groupings based on a topic, a relevance, a search request, an association, a term, content, etc.” Seligmann ¶ 62.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 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 of this title, 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 at the time any inventions covered therein were effectively filed absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 C.F.R. § 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was effectively filed 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 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Seligmann as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0091912 A1 (“Covell”).
Claim 9
Seligmann teaches the computer-readable storage media of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose the use of a CNN, LTSM, or ViT model to classify utterances and messages or identify topics of interest.
Covell, however, teaches instructions to
classify utterances and messages or identify topics of interest using a convolutional neural network (CNN) model, a CNN long short-term memory (LTSM) model, or a Vision Transformer (ViT)-based model.
An image analysis system 544 is provided, in which “a frame 512-1 of video 512 may be analyzed. Using a relevant object detection algorithm, an equation or other relevant topic may be identified in the frame 512-1,” and “[i]n some embodiments, characteristics of objects may be identified by referencing an ontology,” in conjunction with “using an R-CNN” to identify the object. Covell ¶ 87.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to enhance Seligmann’s search object with Covell’s image analysis system 544, which included an R-CNN to identify objects depicted in images.
The rationale supporting this conclusion “is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.” MPEP § 2143 (subsection (I.)(A.)) (citing KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007)). In accordance with MPEP § 2143 (subsection (I.)(A.)), the factual findings leading to this rationale are supported by the evidence in this case as follows:
(1) The prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. The evidence for this finding is set forth above, via the citations mapping each passage of the prior art to a corresponding claim element.
(2) Ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. The evidence for this finding is that image analysis system 544 is independent from the rest of the system disclosed by Covell. That is, the inputs and outputs to image analysis system 544 are the same regardless of whether image analysis system 544 is part of system 500 or any other system.
(3) One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable, given the inputs and outputs of image analysis system 544 remain unchanged.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to enhance Seligmann’s search object with Covell’s image analysis system 544.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Justin R. Blaufeld whose telephone number is (571)272-4372. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00am - 4:00pm ET.
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, James K Trujillo can be reached at (571) 272-3677. 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.
Justin R. Blaufeld
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2151
/Justin R. Blaufeld/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2151
Prosecution Insights