CTFR 18/412,329 CTFR 86792 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. 12-151 AIA 26-51 12-51 Status of Claims This action is in reply to the communications filed on February 27, 2026. The Applicants’ Amendment and Request for Reconsideration has been received and entered. Claims 1-17 and 19-21 are currently pending and have been examined. Claims 1-17 and 19-20 have been amended. Claim 18 has been canceled. Claim 21 is newly added. The previous rejection of claims 15-20 under 35 USC 101 as being directed to a transitory computer-readable medium has been withdrawn. Response to Arguments Applicants’ amendments necessitated any new grounds of rejection. The previous rejection of claims 15-20 under 35 USC 101 as being directed to a transitory computer-readable medium has been withdrawn in view of Applicants’ amendments. Applicants’ arguments regarding the rejections under 35 USC 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicants argue at pages 8-9 of Applicants’ Reply dated February 27, 2026 (hereinafter “Applicants’ Reply”) that claim 1 defines “a process for establishing cross platform access to an externally hosted feature and changing the operational state of the local profile to use an external feature hosted by the external platform, rather than merely analyzing information or presenting recommendations.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, the Examiner notes that claim 1 is not directed to “establishing cross platform access.” There are no steps directed to how the access is established, there is no recitation of logins, handshakes, whitelists, or other structures necessary for establishing access between computer systems. Instead, the access is merely established, representing a conclusion rather than a process for establishing access. Further, there is no reference in the claims to “changing the operational state of the local profile”. Instead, claim 1 states only “enable the local profile to access content of the profile feature hosted by the external platform.” There are no steps for enabling the local profile to do this. Thus, the focus of the claims is not on establishing access but is instead on determining the profile feature and displaying/notifying the local profile regarding it. Applicants’ further argue at page 9 of Applicants’ Reply that claim 12 “integrates a judicial exception into a practical application” because claim 1 recites “in response to determining the profile feature, the system enables the local profile hosted at the local platform to access the externally hosted feature through the software application. This access enablement changes the functional capabilities of the software system by allowing authenticated ‘cross-platform’ interaction with a feature that was previously missing from the local profile.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As discussed immediately above, claim 1 does not recite steps directed to how the access is actually established. Instead, the access is merely established as a conclusory statement. Applicants further argue at page 9 of Applicants’ Reply that the “process improves the functioning of distributed computer systems by selectively enabling access to externally hosted features based on profile state analysis, rather than merely recommending or synchronizing data. The claim includes coordinated operation between a local platform and an external platform, and controlled access through a software application.” As discussed immediately above, claim 1 does not recite steps directed to how the access is actually enabled or established and no reference to enabling this access “based on profile state analysis.” Instead, the access is merely established as a conclusory statement. Applicants discuss the recent Appeals Review Panel Decision in Ex parte Desjardins and further argue at page 10 of Applicants’ Reply that “Claim 1 uses AI as part of a larger process that produces a concrete system-based result. Rather than merely analyzing profile information or generating a recommendation, the claim uses the AI model to identify a profile feature hosted on an external platform that is inactive within a local profile and, in response, the system enables the local profile to access that externally hosted feature through a software application. This enablement step effects a real change in system functionality by establishing cross-platform access to an external resource that was previously unavailable.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Per the Appeal Review Panel Decision in Ex parte Desjardins, per MPEP 2106.04(d)(1), “the specification identified the improvement to machine learning technology by explaining how the machine learning model is trained to learn new tasks while protecting knowledge about previous tasks to overcome the problem of “catastrophic forgetting,” and that the claims reflected the improvement identified in the specification. Indeed, enumerated improvements identified in the Desjardins specification included disclosures of the effective learning of new tasks in succession in connection with specifically protecting knowledge concerning previously accomplished tasks; allowing the system to reduce use of storage capacity; and the enablement of reduced complexity in the system. Such improvements were tantamount to how the machine learning model itself would function in operation and therefore not subsumed in the identified mathematical calculation.” With this in mind, the Examiner respectfully notes that, in Ex parte Desjardins , the claim reflected the technological improvement because the claim identifies how the machine learning model is actually trained, i.e., assigning values and using training data to adjust those values to optimize a particular function. However, as discussed above, claim 1 does not recite steps directed to how the access is actually established. Instead, the access is merely established as a conclusory statement. Thus, the claim is not actually directed to the steps involved in enabling and establishing the access and thus, the claims are not similar to those in Desjardins and Dejardins does not apply. Thus, the rejection under 35 USC 101 is maintained. Applicants’ arguments regarding the rejections under Bielby have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicants argue at pages 12-13 of Applicants’ Reply that Bielby “fails to disclose determining a profile feature hosted by an external platform that is not active within a local profile based on execution of an AI model on feature sets from both profiles. Bielby does mention the use of machine learning, but the machine learning is applied to occupant identification. In other words, Bielby does not describe evaluating the activation state of individual profile features, comparing active and inactive features across platforms, or using the AI model to identify a specific externally-hosted feature missing or inactive within the local profile.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicants’ characterization of Bielby. First, the Examiner respectfully notes that claim 1 does not recite “evaluating the activation state of individual profile features, comparing active and inactive features across platforms, or using the AI model to identify a specific externally-hosted feature missing or inactive within the local profile.” Claim 1 merely recites “determine a profile feature hosted by the external platform and not active within the local profile hosted on the local platform based on an execution of an artificial intelligence (Al) model on the first and second sets of profile features.” As detailed further below, Bielby discloses the server determining the occupants of a vehicle and using a machine learning model to determine configuration data that uses both the local and remote profile as inputs to the model. (See Bielby, para. [0073])). Bielby further discloses that, if it is determined that a second occupant is present along with a first occupant, the remote profile contains data regarding an association between the first and second occupants such that they are both members of the same social network and that this association corresponds to a configuration for at least one function of the vehicle used by the first and second occupants. (See Bielby, paras. [0074]-[0075]). The Examiner respectfully asserts that this configuration is “based on” an execution of an artificial intelligence (Al) model on the first and second sets of profile features. Thus, Bielby discloses this feature. Applicants further argue at page 13 of Applicants’ Reply that “Bielby fails to describe enabling a local profile to access an externally hosted profile feature via the connected external profile in response to such a determination.” The Examiner respectfully notes that, as discussed further below, Tapia discloses this feature in FIG. 3 and paras. [0038] and [0078]. Applicants’ remaining arguments have been fully considered but, as they are directed to the instantly amended claims, they are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. 07-34-01 Claims 4 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 4 recites “wherein the processor is configured to enable the local profile to view the profile features of the connected external profile and execute actions within the profile feature through the software application.” It is unclear what is meant by “execute actions within the profile feature.” For example, if a profile feature is an income, how is an action “executed within the income”? For purposes of examination, the Examiner is interpreting this portion of claim 4 as reciting “wherein the processor is configured to enable the local profile to view the profile features of the connected external profile and execute actions through the software application.” Claim 11 is rejected for similar reasons. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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 1-17 and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Independent claims 1, 8, and 15 recite an apparatus, a method, and a computer readable storage medium connecting a local profile with an external profile. With regard to claim 8, claim elements connecting a local profile with an external profile, extracting a first and second set of profile features from the profiles, and determining a profile feature hosted by the external platform that is not active within the local profile, and enabling the local profile to access content, as drafted, illustrate steps that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover a mental process. That is, other than reciting a processor and memory (in claim 1), nothing in the claim precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. Claims 1 and 15 recite similar limitations. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claims 1, 8, and 15 recite displaying steps. These limitations are considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity. Further, claim 1 recites a processor and a memory. These elements are recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the claims recite displaying information. Per MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), elements such as receiving or transmitting data over a network, using the Internet to gather data, and storing and retrieving information in memory are considered to be computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional functions. See Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPG2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network)). Further, as discussed above, claim 1 recites a processor and a memory. These elements are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions). Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, claims 1, 8, and 15 are directed to the abstract idea. Claims 2-7, 9-14, 16-17, and 19-21 depend from claims 1, 8, and 15. Claims 2, 9, and 16 are directed to receiving profile credentials in order to connect the profiles and are further directed to the abstract idea. Claims 3, 10, and 17 are directed to extracting features and are further directed to the abstract idea. Claims 4 and 11 are directed to enabling the local profile to view and execute actions within the profile feature and are further directed to the abstract idea. Claims 5, 12, and 19 are directed to training the model, which appears to be merely gathering data, and are further directed to the abstract idea. Claims 6, 13, and 20 are directed to displaying interface controls on an interface which, as discussed above, is considered to be an activity that is well-understood, routine, and conventional. Claims 7 and 14 are directed to retraining the model, which, as currently recited, appears to be merely gathering data, and are further directed to the abstract idea. Claim 21 is directed to selectively enabling access to the profile feature and is further directed to the abstract idea. Thus, the claims are not patent eligible. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 07-20-aia AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. 07-23-aia AIA The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. 07-20-02-aia AIA This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1, 3-4, 6, 8, 10-11, 13, 15, 17, and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2021/0406570 A1 to Bielby (hereinafter “Bielby”), in view of US 2021/0182946 A1 to Tapia (hereinafter “Tapia”) . Claims 1, 8, and 15: Bielby discloses that “[u]ser profiles generally can be used to customize a system such as a system for a particular vehicle. Various types of user profiles can include electronic, digital or computerized representations of a specific user.” (See Bielby, at least para. [0005]). Bielby further discloses: a memory (See Bielby, at least FIG. 1 and associated text; para. [0027], vehicle contains memory) ; and a processor coupled to the memory (See Bielby, at least FIG. 1 and associated text; para. [0026], processing device) , the processor configured to: connect a local profile hosted within a software application hosted by a local platform to an external profile hosted by an external service on an external platform (See Bielby, at least FIG. 1 and associated text; para. [0029], memory contains database that contains a local profile for the occupant of the vehicle; para. [0028], instructions in memory include instructions for collecting data, implementing a machine-learning model, communicating with an external computing device; server, and updating a remote profile, and taking actions, i.e., application; para. [0031], local profile is sent through a wireless communication link to a computing device that is a server that stores remote profiles for many occupants and many vehicles; computing device/server links the local profile to the remote profile; para. [0021], remote server may be aa social network server)) , extract a first set of profile features from the connected external profile which are hosted by the external platform and a second set of profile features from the local profile (See Bielby, at least para. [0033], computing device/server uses a machine learning model along with local and remote profile to generate configuration data for the occupant such as seat and mirror positions, favorite radio stations, temperature and ventilation preferences, location preferences, and social connections) and a second set of profile features from the local user profile (See Bielby, at least para. [0035], processing device uses machine-learning model that takes data from local profile including camera data and sensor data and runs algorithms, such as facial and voice recognition, to identify the occupant) , determine a profile feature hosted by the external platform and not active within the local profile hosted on the local platform based on an execution of an artificial intelligence (Al) model on the first and second sets of profile features (See Bielby, at least para. [0073], computing device/server generates configuration data based on an output from a machine learning model that uses the local profile and the remote profile as the inputs; para. [0074], for example, if it is determined that a second occupant is present along with the first occupant, the remote profile contains data regarding an association between the first and second occupants such that they are both members of the same social network; para. [0075], association corresponds to a configuration for at least one function of the vehicle used by the first and second occupants; para. [0076], performing the action comprises configuring a user interface of a control panel in the vehicle) , display information about the profile feature being enabled on a user interface of the software application (See Bielby, at least para. [0076], performing the at least one action comprises configuring a user interface of a control panel (e.g., presented on a display in the vehicle) for the first occupant, wherein the user interface enables the first occupant to adjust at least one function of the vehicle) . Bielby does not expressly disclose in response to determination of the profile feature, enable the local profile to access content of the profile feature hosted by the external platform via the connected external profile while logged into the software application. However, Tapia discloses a “virtual marketplace may offer end users the ability to acquire articles (including tools and metadata objects) that are compatible with an enterprise operating system platform.” (See Tapia, at least Abstract). Tapia further discloses that “interactive interfaces may enable an end user to view tools that are available from the virtual marketplace 102, as well as acquire tools through the marketplace 102. The illustrative interactive interfaces may include an interactive interface 302 that shows available tools by categories, and an interactive interface 302 that shows tools that are recommended by the marketplace engine 202.” (See Tapia, at least FIG. 3 and associated text; para. [0076]). Tapia further discloses in response to determination of the profile feature, enable the local profile to access content of the profile feature hosted by the external platform via the connected external profile while logged into the software application (See Tapia, at least FIG. 3 and associated text; para. [0078]), interactive interface 302 may display tools that are recommended by the marketplace engine 202 to an end user based on one or more tools that are already implemented on an enterprise operating system platform in use by the end user; interactive interface 302 may include a section 310 that shows the tools that are already on the enterprise operating system platform; para. [0038], user creates customer account with account login and password; controls access to marketplace and allows user to conduct transactions in marketplace). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the vehicle profile system and method of Bielby the ability in response to determination of the profile feature, enable the local profile to access content of the profile feature hosted by the external platform via the connected external profile while logged into the software application as disclosed by Tapia since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order that “the end user may be kept up to date on the latest available tools for improving the performance management abilities of the end user.” (See Tapia, at least para. [0018]). Claims 8 and 15 are rejected for similar reasons. Claims 3, 10, and 17: The combination of Bielby and Tapia discloses all the limitations of claims 1, 8, and 15 discussed above. Bielby further discloses wherein the processor is configured to extract a set of active features within the connected external profile and a set of active features within the local profile (See Bielby, at least para. [0033], computing device/server uses a machine learning model along with local and remote profile to generate configuration data for the occupant such as seat and mirror positions, favorite radio stations, temperature and ventilation preferences, location preferences, and social connections; para. [0035], processing device uses machine-learning model that takes data from local profile including camera data and sensor data and runs algorithms, such as facial and voice recognition, to identify the occupant) , and determine the profile feature based on the execution of the AI model on the sets of active features (See Bielby, at least para. [0073], computing device/server generates configuration data based on an output from a machine learning model that uses the local profile and the remote profile as the inputs; para. [0074], for example, if it is determined that a second occupant is present along with the first occupant, the remote profile contains data regarding an association between the first and second occupants such that they are both members of the same social network; para. [0075], association corresponds to a configuration for at least one function of the vehicle used by the first and second occupants; para. [0076], performing the action comprises configuring a user interface of a control panel in the vehicle) . Claims 10 and 17 are rejected for similar reasons. Claims 4 and 11: The combination of Bielby and Tapia discloses all the limitations of claims 1 and 8 discussed above. Bielby does not expressly disclose wherein the processor is configured to enable the local profile to view the profile features of the connected external profile and execute actions within the profile feature through the software application. However, Tapia discloses wherein the processor is configured to enable the local profile to view the profile features of the connected external profile and execute actions within the profile feature through the software application (See Tapia, at least FIG. 3 and associated text; para. [0078]), interactive interface 302 may display tools that are recommended by the marketplace engine 202 to an end user based on one or more tools that are already implemented on an enterprise operating system platform in use by the end user; interactive interface 302 may include a section 310 that shows the tools that are already on the enterprise operating system platform; In some embodiments, the section 310 may display a review option (e.g., review option 312) for each tool such that the end user may provide a review and/or a rating of the tool). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the vehicle profile system and method of Bielby the ability wherein the processor is configured to enable the local profile to view the profile features of the connected external profile and execute actions within the profile feature through the software application as disclosed by Tapia since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order that “the end user may be kept up to date on the latest available tools for improving the performance management abilities of the end user.” (See Tapia, at least para. [0018]). Claim 11 is rejected for similar reasons. Claims 6, 13, and 20: The combination of Bielby and Tapia discloses all the limitations of claims 1, 8, and 15 discussed above. Bielby further discloses that a user interface of a control panel is presented on a display in the vehicle allows an occupant to adjust at least one function of the vehicle . (See Bielby, at least para. [0076]). Bielby does not expressly disclose wherein the processor is further configured to display user interface controls within the user interface, and receive feedback about the profile feature from the user interface based on inputs with respect to controls on the user interface. However, Tapia discloses wherein the processor is further configured to display user interface controls within the user interface, and receive feedback about the profile feature from the user interface based on inputs with respect to controls on the user interface (See Tapia, at least FIG. 3 and associated text; para. [0078], interactive interface 302 may display tools that are recommended by the marketplace engine 202 to an end user based on one or more tools that are already implemented on an enterprise operating system platform in use by the end user; interactive interface 302 may include a section 310 that shows the tools that are already on the enterprise operating system platform. In some embodiments, the section 310 may display a review option (e.g., review option 312) for each tool such that the end user may provide a review and/or a rating of the tool”) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the vehicle profile system and method of Bielby the ability wherein the processor is further configured to display user interface controls within the user interface, and receive feedback about the profile feature from the user interface based on inputs with respect to controls on the user interface as disclosed by Tapia since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order that “the end user may be kept up to date on the latest available tools for improving the performance management abilities of the end user.” (See Tapia, at least para. [0018]). Claims 13 and 20 are rejected for similar reasons. Claim 21: The combination of Bielby and Tapia discloses all the limitations of claim 1 discussed above. Bielby does not expressly disclose wherein the processor is configured to selectively enable access to the profile feature without enabling access to other profile features hosted by the remote external platform. However, Tapia discloses wherein the processor is configured to selectively enable access to the profile feature without enabling access to other profile features hosted by the remote external platform (See Tapia, at least FIG. 3 and associated text; para. [0078]), interactive interface 302 may display tools that are recommended by the marketplace engine 202 to an end user based on one or more tools that are already implemented on an enterprise operating system platform in use by the end user; interactive interface 302 may include a section 310 that shows the tools that are already on the enterprise operating system platform; user has access to (i.e., can review) apps tools that the user has already installed/purchased but cannot access other tools, i.e., can only bid on them or purchase them) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the vehicle profile system and method of Bielby the ability wherein the processor is configured to selectively enable access to the profile feature without enabling access to other profile features hosted by the remote external platform as disclosed by Tapia since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order that “the end user may be kept up to date on the latest available tools for improving the performance management abilities of the end user.” (See Tapia, at least para. [0018]) . 07-22-aia AIA Claim s 2, 9, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bielby in view of Tapia as applied to claim s 1, 8, and 15 above, and further in view of US 2014/0074550 A1 to Chourey (hereinafter “Chourey”) . The combination of Bielby and Tapia discloses all the limitations of claims 1, 8, and 15 discussed above. Neither Bielby nor Talia expressly discloses wherein the processor is further configured to receive profile credentials for the external profile via the user interface and submit the profile credentials to the external service to connect the external profile to the software application. However, Chourey discloses a “method for using an external login procedure to track interactions on a website.” (See Chourey, at least Abstract). Chourey further discloses that a “Web Content Management System (WCMS) may include computer programs that allow for the publishing, editing, and modifying of data content on a website, as well as maintenance from a centralized platform. A WCMS can typically be used to present information on websites. Data content managed by a WCMS may include items such as documents, movies, pictures, text, scientific data, phone numbers, database information, animations, white papers, product descriptions, navigational structures, contact information, data entry forms, code, JavaScript, interactive chat pages, and/or the like.” (See Chourey, at least para. [0026]. Chourey further discloses wherein the processor is further configured to receive profile credentials for the external profile via the user interface and submit the profile credentials to the external service to connect the external profile to the software application (See Chourey, at least para. [0036], web server provides a login page as a part of the website that is presented to the user on a display device of the user device; user enters user credentials, such as a username and/or password, using the user device; user credentials are sent to an external data source that returns an authentication of the user's identity, along with information associated with the user) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the vehicle profile system and method of Bielby and the virtual marketplace recommendation system and method of Tapia the ability wherein the processor is further configured to receive profile credentials for the external profile via the user interface and submit the profile credentials to the external service to connect the external profile to the software application as disclosed by Tapia since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to augment a local profile in order to “make additional website data content accessible to the user.” (See Chourey, at least para. [0023]). Claims 9 and 16 are rejected for similar reasons . 07-22-aia AIA Claim s 5, 7, 12, 14, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bielby in view of Tapia as applied to claim s 1, 6, 8, 13, and 15 above, and further in view of US 2019/0114662 A1 to Bennion et al. (hereinafter “Bennion”) . Claims 5, 12, and 19: The combination of Bielby and Tapia discloses all the limitations of claims 1, 8, and 15 discussed above. Neither Bielby nor Talia expressly discloses wherein the processor is further configured to train the AI model to determine the profile feature based on the execution of the AI model on profiles hosted by the external platform and features included in the profiles. However, Bennion discloses “systems and methods for dynamically generating advertisements for presentation in an application executing on a user device, such as an application executing on a smart phone or tablet of a user. An ad server system provides various ad templates, each of which include one or more tokens at different locations within the ad templates. The same token may be included in multiple different ad templates at the same or different locations. Based on user profile and/or conditions at the time of ad presentation, an appropriate template is selected and used to dynamically generate the ad.” (See Bennion, at least Abstract). Bennion further discloses wherein the processor is further configured to train the AI model to determine the profile feature based on the execution of the AI model on profiles hosted by the external platform and features included in the profiles (See Bennion, at least para. [0071], machine learning system is trained using user profiles, advertisements, and actual user responses (engagement values) to those advertisements to develop different user models for different user profiles and to correlate user profiles with the developed user models; for example, users with similar user profiles may produce similar responses to an advertisement presented under similar conditions; these models are used for users with similar user profiles). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the vehicle profile system and method of Bielby and the virtual marketplace recommendation system and method of Tapia the ability wherein the processor is further configured to train the AI model to determine the profile feature based on the execution of the AI model on profiles hosted by the external platform and features included in the profiles as disclosed by Bennion since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to augment a local profile in order to select content items that have the highest probability of engagement from a particular user (See Bennion, at least para. [0071]). Claims 12 and 19 are rejected for similar reasons. Claims 7 and 14: The combination of Bielby and Tapia discloses all the limitations of claims 6 and 13 discussed above. Neither Bielby nor Talia expressly discloses wherein the processor is further configured to retrain the AI model based on the profile feature and the feedback about the profile feature received from the user interface. However, Bennion discloses wherein the processor is further configured to retrain the AI model based on the profile feature and the feedback about the profile feature received from the user interface (See Bennion, at least para. [0021], feedback regarding a user’s engagement with the selected advertisement is received and used to update the models). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the vehicle profile system and method of Bielby and the virtual marketplace recommendation system and method of Tapia the ability wherein the processor is further configured to retrain the AI model based on the profile feature and the feedback about the profile feature received from the user interface as disclosed by Bennion since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so such that “engagement feedback representative of actual user engagement may be received by the ad server system and utilized to update the models. By continually updating the models, future predictions and advertisement placements will be further enhanced.” (See Bennion, at least para. [0021]). Claim 14 is rejected for similar reasons . Conclusion 07-40 AIA 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANNE MARIE GEORGALAS whose telephone number is (571)270-1258 E.S.T. . The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:30am-5:00pm. 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, Marissa Thein can be reached on 571-272-6764. 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. /Anne M Georgalas/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3689 Application/Control Number: 18/412,329 Page 2 Art Unit: 3689 Application/Control Number: 18/412,329 Page 3 Art Unit: 3689 Application/Control Number: 18/412,329 Page 4 Art Unit: 3689 Application/Control Number: 18/412,329 Page 5 Art Unit: 3689 Application/Control Number: 18/412,329 Page 6 Art Unit: 3689 Application/Control Number: 18/412,329 Page 7 Art Unit: 3689 Application/Control Number: 18/412,329 Page 8 Art Unit: 3689 Application/Control Number: 18/412,329 Page 9 Art Unit: 3689 Application/Control Number: 18/412,329 Page 10 Art Unit: 3689 Application/Control Number: 18/412,329 Page 11 Art Unit: 3689 Application/Control Number: 18/412,329 Page 12 Art Unit: 3689 Application/Control Number: 18/412,329 Page 13 Art Unit: 3689 Application/Control Number: 18/412,329 Page 14 Art Unit: 3689 Application/Control Number: 18/412,329 Page 15 Art Unit: 3689 Application/Control Number: 18/412,329 Page 16 Art Unit: 3689 Application/Control Number: 18/412,329 Page 17 Art Unit: 3689 Application/Control Number: 18/412,329 Page 18 Art Unit: 3689 Application/Control Number: 18/412,329 Page 19 Art Unit: 3689 Application/Control Number: 18/412,329 Page 20 Art Unit: 3689 Application/Control Number: 18/412,329 Page 21 Art Unit: 3689 Application/Control Number: 18/412,329 Page 22 Art Unit: 3689 Application/Control Number: 18/412,329 Page 23 Art Unit: 3689 Application/Control Number: 18/412,329 Page 24 Art Unit: 3689 Application/Control Number: 18/412,329 Page 25 Art Unit: 3689 Application/Control Number: 18/412,329 Page 26 Art Unit: 3689 Application/Control Number: 18/412,329 Page 27 Art Unit: 3689 Application/Control Number: 18/412,329 Page 28 Art Unit: 3689
Prosecution Insights