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 .
The following is a final office action in response to communications received 01/20/2026. Claims 1, 10, 19 have been amended. Therefore, claims 1-20 are pending and addressed below.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments and response to the claims are NOT sufficient to overcome the Double Patenting rejection as well as 35 USC 101 rejections set forth in the previous office action. The double patenting rejection is maintained.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 01/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of new grounds of rejections.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-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 www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting over claims 21-40 of copending application No. 18/582292. This is a provisional double patenting rejection since the conflicting claims have not in fact been patented. By way of illustration, consider the respective 1st claim 1 from each disclosure:
Claim 1 of the instant application
Claim 21 of the ‘copending application
1. A method comprising: receiving, by a computing device comprising a processor and a non transitory memory via a user interface, a user input associated with an application; receiving, by the computing device via a data interface, stored information associated with a user; determining, via an artificial intelligence (Al) model based on the user input and the stored information, one or more actions, the determining including evaluating a user defined policy specifying permissible actions for the application; performing the one or more actions on the application; and transmitting output from the application to the user interface.
21. A method comprising: receiving, by a computing device via a user interface, a user input associated with an application; receiving, by the computing device via a data interface, stored information associated with the user, wherein the stored information includes learned user preferences; determining, via an artificial intelligence (Al) model based on the user input and the stored information, one or more actions; wherein, using learned user information and preferences and other data, the Al native operating system wrapper predicts desired application behavior based on the user information, preferences, and other data, and the Al based model provides user information and sensor data as inputs and predicts desired application behavior based on those inputs, and then automates application tasks based on this prediction; performing the one or more actions on the application; and transmitting output from the application to the user interface.
Independent claims 1, 10, 19 of the instant application are substantially similar to independent claims 21, 30, 35, of the copending application and are rejected for substantially similar reasons as discussed supra. Likewise, dependent claims 2-9, 11-18, 20 of the instant application are substantially similar to dependent claims 22-29, 31-34, 36-40 (respectively) of the copending application and are rejected for substantially similar reasons as discussed supra.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-6, 10-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-16, 10-15 recite in part process steps which, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, are a series of mental processes including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. If a claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process or a mathematical concept but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the "Mental Process" grouping of abstract ideas. Therefore, claims 1-6, 10-15 recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites following element(s) – receiving, by a computing device comprising a processor and a non transitory memory…. The computing device comprising a processor and a non transitory memory is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer to receive a user input, receive stored information, determine via AI model, perform one or more action, transmit output from the application, such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. As described in MPEP 2106.0S(g), limitations that amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to a judicial exception cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, claims 1-6, 10-15 are directed to a judicial exception.
Claims 1-6, 10-15 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of the computing device is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer to receive a user input, receive stored information, determine via AI model, perform one or more action, transmit output from the application to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Claims 1-6, 10-15 are not patent eligible.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6-8, 10-13, 15-17, 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bueche, JR (Pub. No. US 2022/0172176) in view of Diwan et al (Pub. No. US 2019/0180746).
As per claim 1, Bueche, JR discloses a method comprising: receiving, by a computing device comprising a processor and a non transitory memory via a user interface, a user input associated with an application (…the analytic server may receive a request to schedule an appointment from a customer electronic device…see par. 18); receiving, by the computing device via a data interface, stored information associated with a user (…the analytic server may create the service provider database when the service providers register with the analytic server…during the registration, the analytic server may display a graphical user interface (GUI) requesting the customers or service providers to enter required information…see par. 21); determining, via an artificial intelligence (AI) model based on the user input and the stored information, one or more actions, performing the one or more actions on the application (…the analytic server may display a GUI requesting the customer to enter credential information such as username, password, certificate, and biometrics…the analytic server may access the customer database storing user credentials, which the analytic server may be configured to reference in order to determine whether a set of credentials match an appropriate set of credentials that identify and authenticate the customer…see par. 22…the analytic server may execute an artificial intelligence model to predict the user preferences and service request attributes…see par. 46); and transmitting output from the application to the user interface (…The analytic server may send the electronic message in the form of text message, instant message, email, voicemail, or any other electronic message. The electronic message may include a GUI that displays…see par. 52). Bueche does not explicitly disclose the determining including evaluating a user defined policy specifying permissible actions for the application. However Diwan discloses the determining including evaluating a user defined policy specifying permissible actions for the application (…the SOE may ensure that the user opts in (e.g., via an affirmative authorization, by providing access information to the data management platform, and/or the like) to a service that enables the SOE to manage data associated with one or more accounts of the one or more data management platforms. Accordingly, the SOE may be configured to abide by any and all applicable laws with respect to maintaining the privacy of the user and/or content of received user inputs and/or content of the data management platforms… the SOE may utilize the API and/or the RPA to cause an action to be performed on one or more of the data management platforms…see par. 20, 23). Therefore one ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to use Diwan in Bueche for including the above limitations because one ordinary skill in the art would recognize it would further improve management of information associated with an individual, an entity that maintains a data structure to include an account associated with the individual…by causing a natural language processing model to analyze the user input, wherein the natural language processing model is configured to identify, from the user input, an operation associated with the account, see Diwan, par. 3.
As per claim 10, Bueche, JR discloses a computing device comprising: one or more memories; and one or more processors coupled to the one or more memories, the one or more memories storing instructions that are executable by the one or more processors (par. 60), individually or in any combination, to cause the computing device to: receive, via a user interface, a user input associated with an application (…the analytic server may receive a request to schedule an appointment from a customer electronic device…see par. 18); receive, via a data interface, stored information associated with a user (…the analytic server may create the service provider database when the service providers register with the analytic server…during the registration, the analytic server may display a graphical user interface (GUI) requesting the customers or service providers to enter required information…see par. 21); determine, via an artificial intelligence (AI) model based on the user input and the stored information, one or more actions, perform the one or more actions on the application (…the analytic server may display a GUI requesting the customer to enter credential information such as username, password, certificate, and biometrics…the analytic server may access the customer database storing user credentials, which the analytic server may be configured to reference in order to determine whether a set of credentials match an appropriate set of credentials that identify and authenticate the customer…see par. 22…the analytic server may execute an artificial intelligence model to predict the user preferences and service request attributes…see par. 46); and transmit output from the application to the user interface (…The analytic server may send the electronic message in the form of text message, instant message, email, voicemail, or any other electronic message. The electronic message may include a GUI that displays…see par. 52). Bueche does not explicitly disclose including evaluating a user defined policy specifying permissible actions for the application. However Diwan discloses including evaluating a user defined policy specifying permissible actions for the application (…the SOE may ensure that the user opts in (e.g., via an affirmative authorization, by providing access information to the data management platform, and/or the like) to a service that enables the SOE to manage data associated with one or more accounts of the one or more data management platforms. Accordingly, the SOE may be configured to abide by any and all applicable laws with respect to maintaining the privacy of the user and/or content of received user inputs and/or content of the data management platforms… the SOE may utilize the API and/or the RPA to cause an action to be performed on one or more of the data management platforms…see par. 20, 23). Therefore one ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to use Diwan in Bueche for including the above limitations because one ordinary skill in the art would recognize it would further improve management of information associated with an individual, an entity that maintains a data structure to include an account associated with the individual…by causing a natural language processing model to analyze the user input, wherein the natural language processing model is configured to identify, from the user input, an operation associated with the account, see Diwan, par. 3.
As per claim 19, Bueche, JR discloses a system comprising: a plurality of edge devices configured to collect user data; and a central secure platform communicatively connected via a communications channel to each edge device of the plurality of edge devices (…the customer electronic devices may be any computing device allowing a customer to interact with the analytic server …the customer electronic devices may comprise any number of input and output devices supporting various types of data, such as text, image, audio, video, and the like…the customer electronic device may execute an appointment-scheduling program, which may include a user interface that renders an interactive layout, schematic, or other elements for the user to input a request…for example, the user interface may include a text-based interface allowing the user to enter manual command…see fig.1, par. 25),
wherein the central secure platform is configured to: store user data received from the plurality of edge devices (…the analytic server may request the customer to provide the user identifier when the customer issues a request for making an appointment…the analytic server may display a GUI requesting the customer to enter credential information such as username, password, certificate, and biometrics…the analytic server may access the customer database storing user credentials, which the analytic server may be configured to reference in order to determine whether a set of credentials match an appropriate set of credentials that identify and authenticate the customer…the analytic server may retrieve the relevant customer data from the customer database and various external sources based on the customer identifier to better understand the customer's needs and preferences…see par. 22). Bueche does not explicitly disclose apply a user defined policy to filter suppress or transform the user data prior to providing the stored user data to one or more service providers. However Diwan discloses apply a user defined policy to filter suppress or transform the user data prior to providing the stored user data to one or more service providers (…the user input may include a request that information, associated with an account, be updated (e.g., add information, remove information, edit information, and/or the like), provide information (e.g., read and/or send information) associated with the account, create the account, remove the account, link the account to another account associated with another data management platform… the SOE may cause the operations to be performed based on the received user input, the type of operation that is to be performed, and one or more characteristics of the data management platform involved in the operation…see par. 20, 23-24). Therefore one ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to use Diwan in Bueche for including the above limitations because one ordinary skill in the art would recognize it would further improve management of information associated with an individual, an entity that maintains a data structure to include an account associated with the individual…by causing a natural language processing model to analyze the user input, wherein the natural language processing model is configured to identify, from the user input, an operation associated with the account, see Diwan, par. 3.
As per claims 2, 11, the combination of Bueche, JR and Diwan discloses wherein: the stored information includes security credentials and learned user preferences associated with the security credentials; the one or more actions include inputting the security credentials to the application (Bueche: see par. 21-22).
As per claims 3, 12, the combination of Bueche, JR and Diwan discloses wherein the determining includes determining, via the AI model, to input the security credentials in response to a determination that the application is trusted and authorized by the user based on the learned user preferences (Bueche: see par. 31-33).
As per claims 4, 13, the combination of Bueche, JR and Diwan disclose wherein the one or more actions includes providing anonymized data to the application (Diwan: see par. 23). The motivation for claims 4, 13 is the same motivation as in claims 1, 10 above.
As per claims 6, 15, the combination of Bueche, JR and Diwan discloses wherein the stored information comprises at least one of: historical activities data (Bueche: see par. 19), sensor data, local mobile data, remote server data, IoT data, or vehicle data.
As per claims 7, 16, the combination of Bueche, JR and Diwan discloses wherein the receiving the stored information includes receiving, via a network, the stored information from a central server (Bueche: see par. 22).
As per claims 8, 17, the combination of Bueche, JR and Diwan discloses updating the stored information at the central server based on the user input (Diwan: see par. 24). The motivation for claims 4, 13 is the same motivation as in claims 1, 10 above.
As per claim 20, the combination of Bueche, JR and Diwan discloses wherein the user data comprises at least one of: historical activities data (Bueche: see par. 19), sensor data, local mobile data, remote server data, IoT data, or vehicle data.
Claims 5, 9, 14, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bueche, JR (Pub. No. US 2022/0172176) in view of Diwan et al (Pub. No. US 2019/0180746) as applied to claims 1, 10 above and in further view of Shimomura et al (Pub. No. US 2023/0368049).
As per claims 5, 14, the combination of Bueche and Diwan does not explicitly disclose wherein the one or more actions include accessing additional services of the computing device including at least one of: sensor data access; memory access; or access services of a second application. However Shimomura discloses wherein the one or more actions include accessing additional services of the computing device including at least one of: sensor data access; memory access; or access services of a second application (…a sensor device can acquire sensing data of a surrounding environment where the sensor device is installed, and transmit distribution data acquired from the acquired sensing data to an external device such as a user device…the sensor device desirably has an AI function…see par. 81). Therefore one ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to use Shimomura in the combination of Bueche and Diwan for including the above limitations because one ordinary skill in the art would recognize it would further improve protect the information processing system from leakage, falsification, and the like of information…see Shimomura, par. 412.
As per claims 9, 18, the combination of Bueche and Diwan discloses wherein: the application is a vehicle-based application, and the one or more actions include modifying a behavior of the application (…the customer electronic device may be a smart device, such as a smart vehicle…a vehicle with self-diagnostic and reporting capability may determine that the vehicle needs oil change and request the analytic server to make an oil change appointment…the customer electronic devices may comprise any number of input and output devices supporting various types of data, such as text, image, audio, video, and the like…the customer electronic device may execute an appointment-scheduling program, which may include a user interface that renders an interactive layout, schematic, or other elements for the user to input a request…the user interface may include a text-based interface allowing the user to enter manual command…see par. 25). The combination of Bueche and Diwan does not explicitly disclose the user interface is a vehicle-mounted user interface. However Shimomura discloses the user interface is a vehicle-mounted user interface (…the sensor device can be an imaging device mounted on a moving body such as an automobile…see par. 82). Therefore one ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to use Shimomura in the combination of Bueche and Diwan for including the above limitations because one ordinary skill in the art would recognize it would further improve protect the information processing system from leakage, falsification, and the like of information…see Shimomura, par. 412.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure (see PTO-form 892).
The following Patents and Papers are cited to further show the state of the art at the time of Applicant’s invention with respect to AI enabled delivery of user specific services.
Dhillon et al (Pub. No. US 2023/0317246); “System and Method for Facilitating Mental Health Assessment and Enhancing Mental Health Via Facial Recognition”;
-Teaches facilitating mental health assessment and enhancing mental health via facial recognition and content associated with physical attributes and expressions…see par. 12.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GHAZAL B SHEHNI whose telephone number is (571)270-7479. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9am-5pm PCT.
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, Philip Chea can be reached at 5712723951. 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.
/GHAZAL B SHEHNI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2499