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 the arguments filed on 01/22/2026.
2. Claims 41-43, 45-53, and 55-60 are pending in the application.
3. Claims 41-43, 45-53, and 55-60 have been rejected.
4. Claims 1-40, 44, and 54 are cancelled.
Response to Arguments
5. Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 41-43, 45-53, and 55-60 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
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 claims at issue 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this 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 §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) 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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/forms/. The 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 http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 41-43, 45-53, and 55-60 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,392,688. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Claims 41-43, 45-53, and 55-60 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,907,363. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
“A later patent claim is not patentably distinct from an earlier patent claim if the later claim is obvious over, or anticipated by, the earlier claim. In re Longi, 759 F.2d at 896, 225 USPQ at 651 (affirming a holding of obviousness-type double patenting because the claims at issue were obvious over claims in four prior art patents); In re Berg, 140 F.3d at 1437, 46 USPQ2d at 1233 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (affirming a holding of obviousness-type double patenting where a patent application claim to a genus is anticipated by a patent claim to a species within that genus). “ELI LILLY AND COMPANY v BARR LABORATORIES, INC., United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, ON PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC (DECIDED: May 30, 2001).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
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.
4. Claims 41-43, 45-53, and 55-60 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LeBeau et al hereafter LeBeau (US pat. 8239206) and in view of MING et al hereafter MING (US pat. App. Pub. 20190034542) and in further view of VanLund et al hereafter VanLund (US pat. 10438582).
5. As per claims 41, and 51, LeBeau discloses a system, a method to transfer data in a secure processing environment, comprising: a third-party application executed in a secure processing environment managed by a computing device comprising one or more processors and memory, the third-party application comprising an application programming interface to interface with a local digital assistant component, the local digital component in communication with a remote digital assistant component via a communication channel to processes input audio signals to invoke the third-party application, the third-party application to (2:1-67, 17: 1-67, wherein it emphasizes that a third party application comprising API to interface with local component which connect with remote digital component. The audio signal invokes the third party application): receive, from the local digital assistant component, an indication of prior audio input detected by a microphone of the computing device prior to reception of audio input that resulted in the invocation of the third-party application; store, in the secure processing environment, the indication of the prior audio input (6:11-67, 7:1-41, 10:45-67, 11:1-67, and 12: 1-63, wherein it elaborates that a prior audio record detected by a microphone prior to reception of audio input is stored in a secure storage); retrieve, from the secure processing environment responsive to the event, the indication of the prior audio input stored in the secure processing environment and received from the local digital assistant via the application programming interface; and provide, to a digital component selector, the content request and the indication of the prior audio input, the digital component selector to execute a real-time content selection process based on the content request and the indication of the prior audio input (3:3-67, 4:1-17, 13:18-67, 14:1-36, 20:55-67, 21:1-10, wherein it discusses in response of the event retrieve the prior audio data and received from the local digital assistant via the application programming interface. Then, provide the content request and indication of the prior audio data and select the content on a real-time content selection process based on the content request and the indication of the prior audio input). LeBeau discusses about content request. In the same field of endeavor, MING discloses generate, responsive to an event, a content request (paragraphs: 8-10, and 58-61).
Accordingly, it would been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the network security art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated MING’s teachings of generate, responsive to an event, a content request with the teachings of LeBeau, for the purpose of effectively protecting the content access from any unauthorized intruders.
LeBeau and MING does not disclose wherein the indication of prior audio input comprises a unique identifier. However, in the same field of endeavor, VanLund discloses an indication of prior audio input detected by a microphone of the computing device prior to reception of audio input that resulted in the invocation of the third-party application, wherein the indication of prior audio input comprises a unique identifier (3:28-45, 4:43-60, 7:43-67, and 8:1-25), and provide, responsive to the content request triggered in the third-party application, the unique identifier to the digital component selector (10:41-67, 11:1-25, and 11:45-67).
Accordingly, it would been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the network security art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated VanLund’s teachings of indication of prior audio input comprises a unique identifier and provide, responsive to the content request triggered in the third-party application, the unique identifier to the digital component selector with the teachings of LeBeau- MING, for the purpose of effectively accessing the content from the content provider based on specific audio reference.
6. As per claim 42, LeBeau in view of MING discloses the system, wherein the indication of the prior audio input comprises a packaged data object comprising the prior audio input detected by the microphone prior to the reception of the audio input that resulted in the invocation of the third-party application (LeBeau: 4:45-60, 5:10-45).
7. As per claim 43, LeBeau in view of MING discloses the system, wherein the indication of the prior audio input comprises a packaged data object comprising the prior audio input detected by the microphone prior to the reception of the audio input that resulted in the invocation of the third-party application, the packaged data object generated by the local digital assistant component responsive to the invocation of the third-party application (LeBeau: 1:40-57, 2:1-30).
9. As per claim 45, LeBeau in view of MING discloses the system, wherein the indication of the prior audio input comprises a unique identifier, the third-party application to: receive, from the local digital assistant component, the unique identifier corresponding to the prior audio input; transmit the unique identifier and the content request to the digital component selector, the digital component selector to perform a lookup in a database using the unique identifier to identify the prior audio input; and receive, from the digital component selector for presentation, a digital component selected via the real-time content selection process based on the prior audio input corresponding to the unique identifier (LeBeau: 6:27-60, 7:25-59).
10. As per claim 46, LeBeau in view of MING discloses the system, comprising the third-party application to: receive, subsequent to transmission of the content request and the indication of the prior audio input, a digital component selected by the digital component selector via the real-time content selection process based on the indication of the prior audio input; and present, via the computing device, the digital component (LeBeau: 12:4-30, 13:7-33, 14:4-33).
11. As per claim 47, LeBeau in view of MING discloses the system, comprising the third-party application to: receive, responsive to the content request, a digital component selected via the real-time content selection process based on the indication of the prior audio input; and present, via audio output by the computing device, the digital component (LeBeau: 12: 40-60, 14:30-65, 15:6-35).
12. As per claim 48, LeBeau in view of MING discloses the system, comprising the third-party application to: receive, responsive to the content request, a digital component selected via the real-time content selection process based on the indication of the prior audio input; and transmit, to a second third-party application executing on a second computing device in communication with the computing device, the digital component, the second third-party application to present the digital component (LeBeau: 8:5-30, 9:45-65).
13. As per claim 49, LeBeau in view of MING discloses the system, comprising the third-party application to launch in the secure processing environment, wherein the secure processing environment is initially configured to prevent access to the prior audio input processed by the local digital assistant component (LeBeau: 6:1-25, 7:5-25).
14. As per claim 50, LeBeau in view of MING discloses the system, comprising: the third-party application to modify content of the third-party application based on the indication of the prior audio input (LeBeau: 2:35-57, 3:3-30).
15. Claims 52-53, and 55-60 are listed all the same elements of claims 42-43, and 45-50. Therefore, the supporting rationales of the rejection to claims 42-43, and 45-50 apply equally as well to claims 52-53, and 55-60.
Conclusion
16. 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 Mohammad W. Reza whose telephone number is 571-272-6590. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F (9:00-5:00).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Cathy Thiaw can be reached on 571-270-1138. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/MOHAMMAD W REZA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2407
Prosecution Insights