Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
1. This is in response to application filed on 02/05/2025 in which claim 1-20 are presented for examination.
Status of Claims
2. Claims 1-20 are pending, of which claim 1, 08 and 15 are in independent form.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3. 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.
4. Claims 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter
Claims 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claim 15 recites “A computer-readable storage medium” It appears that the medium recited in the claims are not described in the specification as including a non-transitory tangible medium in a manner which enables it to act as a computer component to realize the computer program’s functionality. Therefore, when the claims are interpreted broadly as transmission medium or signal, the claims appear to be non-statutory because they are not tangibly embodied in a manner so as to be executable. Applicant should add the “non-transitory" to the preamble.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
5. Claims 1-4, 6-11, 13, 15-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US PG Pub 2016/0180567) published on June 23, 2016 in view of Kraiss et al. (US PG Pub 2005/0154748) published on July 14, 2005.
As per claim 1, 8 and 15, Lee teaches An apparatus comprising: a memory; and
a processor coupled to the memory(Para[0016-0017] discloses memory and processor, as taught by Lee), the processor configured to:
execute a waiting period of time within a software application being accessed by a user(Para[0025-0026] fig 4 discloses At 402, search criteria are being set, such as, for example, in response to the user input. During this time, the application displays the standby indicator 308. At 404, the search is triggered in the application, such as by the user hitting a submit button. In response to this triggering, the application displays a state transition animation associated with the state change from standby to searching data. State transition can be interpreted as waiting period, as taught by Lee) ;
execute an animation via the software application during the waiting period(Para[0023-0025] fig 3-4 shows animation during the waiting period. Transitions between the states are represented by the state transition animations (e.g., 318) between adjacent states, as taught by Lee);
determine a result of the software application being accessed by the user(fig 4 Para[0025] the application receives search results and displays a corresponding state transition animation, followed by the loading user interface indicator 316 to indicate that the search results are being loaded into the user interface for display to the user, as taught by Lee);
execute the waiting period with the additional time, augment the animation, via the software application (Fig 3-4 Para[0022-028] discloses displays animation during transitional period, as taught by Lee); and execute the augmented animation via the software application(Fig 3-4 Para[0022-028] discloses displays animation during transitional period. application receives search results and displays a corresponding state transition animation, followed by the loading user interface indicator 316 to indicate that the search results are being loaded into the user interface for display to the user, as taught by Lee);
Lee does not explicitly teach determine additional time to add to the waiting period of time based on the result, via the software application; based on the additional time to add to the waiting period; during the additional time.
On the other hand, Kraiss teaches determine additional time to add to the waiting period of time based on the result, via the software application(Para[0025] the software application 102 can determine whether it will use initial task output information that it obtains, or whether it will instead wait a longer period of time for additional, as taught by Kraiss); based on the additional time to add to the waiting period (Para[0025] e.g. longer period of time, as taught by Kraiss); during the additional time (Para[0025] e.g. longer period of time, as taught by Kraiss).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the
invention to modify Lee invention with the teaching of Kraiss because doing so would
result in increased accuracy by allowing software application to determine whether the output information
satisfies a predetermined confidence rating of 50%.
As per claim 2, 9 and 16, the combination of Lee and Kraiss teaches wherein the processor is configured to execute the waiting period within a window of the software application, and the execution of the animation comprises playing the animation within the window of the software application(Para[0021-0028, as taught by Lee).
As per claim 3, 10 and 17, the combination of Lee and Kraiss teaches wherein the processor is further configured to determine the additional time to add to the waiting period based on a feature being offered by the software application(Para[0025], as taught by Kraiss).
As per claim 4, 11 and 18, the combination of Lee and Kraiss teaches wherein the processor is configured to determine the additional time to add to the waiting period based on a function that is to be performed by the software application during the waiting period(Para[0025-0027], as taught by Kraiss).
As per claim 6, 13 and 20, the combination of Lee and Kraiss teaches wherein the processor is further configured to select the animation to execute during the waiting period based on the additional time added to the waiting period(Para[0022-0027], as taught by Kraiss).
As per claim 7, the combination of Lee and Kraiss teaches wherein the processor is further configured to play the animation until an end of the additional time added to the waiting period(Fig 3-4 Para[0022-028], as taught by Lee).
6. Claims 5, 12 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US PG Pub 2016/0180567) published on June 23, 2016 in view of Kraiss et al. (US PG Pub 2005/0154748) published on July 14, 2005 in further view of Goguen (US PG Pub 2009/0249417) published on October 01, 2009.
As per claim 5, 12 and 19, the combination of Lee and Kraiss does not teach wherein the processor is further configured to determine how much time to add to the waiting period based on an entry stored in a lookup table of the software application which includes a mapping from the result to an amount of time to include in the waiting period.
On the other hand, Goguen teaches wherein the processor is further configured to determine how much time to add to the waiting period based on an entry stored in a lookup table of the software application which includes a mapping from the result to an amount of time to include in the waiting period(Para[0020] the software 9 uses the table to identify service flows enabled for additional bandwidth. Thereafter, the software 9 fills the gaps in the generated grant MAP up to the predetermined number of broadcast contention slots, and any remaining gaps in the generated grant MAP are filled with additional time slots for the enabled service flows from the table, as taught by Goguen).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the
invention to modify Lee and Kraiss invention with the teaching of Goguen because doing so would
result in increased accuracy by adding time according to the required time.
.
7. Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US PG Pub 2016/0180567) published on June 23, 2016 in view of Kraiss et al. (US PG Pub 2005/0154748) published on July 14, 2005 in further view of Trim (US PG Pub 2020/0169554) published on May 28, 2020.
As per claim 14, the combination of Lee and Kraiss teaches further comprising playing the animation until an end of the additional time added to the waiting period(Fig 3-4 Para[0022-028], as taught by Lee).
the combination of Lee and Kraiss does not teach wherein the additional time is determined by an AI chatbot.
On the other hand, Trim teaches wherein the additional time is determined by an AI chatbot (Para[0059-0063] extra time is added corresponds to the chatbot activity, as taught by Trim).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the
invention to modify Lee and Kraiss invention with the teaching of Trim because doing so would
result in increased accuracy by adding time as needed by the activity of the software application.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAYEEZ R CHOWDHURY whose telephone number is (571)270-3069. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-6:30PM 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, William L Bashore can be reached at 571-272-4088. 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.
/RAYEEZ R CHOWDHURY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2174 Saturday, June 27, 2026
Prosecution Insights