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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in India on July 6, 2023. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the IN202341045397 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are: “network connectivity module,” “network connectivity logger,” “content consumption module,” “content consumption logger,” “network connectivity prediction engine,” “content consumption prediction engine,” “decision engine,” “battery monitoring module”, “battery charge level logger,” “context monitoring module,” and “context logger” in claims 11-17.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. Support for these limitations can be found in Fig. 1, pages 9-17 (paragraphs [0023]-[0038]) of the applicant’s specification.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because figure 1 is blurry. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 11-17, 21, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventors, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 11 recites “a content consumption logger… a network connectivity prediction engine… a content consumption prediction engine…” in lines 25-35. Lines 14-24 also recites “a content consumption logger… a network connectivity prediction engine… a content consumption prediction engine,” thus suggesting that there are multiple (two) of each of the content consumption loggers, network connectivity prediction engines, and content consumption prediction engines. However, the applicant’s specification only discloses the system comprising one content consumption logger, network connectivity prediction engine, and content consumption prediction engine (see fig. 1, pages 9-17, [0023]-[0038], of the applicant’s specification). Therefore, the limitation “a content consumption logger… a network connectivity prediction engine… a content consumption prediction engine…,” as recited in lines 25-35 of claim 11, is not taught, suggested, or made obvious by the applicant’s specification and thus constitute new matter.
Claims 12-17, 21, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement by virtue of being dependent on claim 12.
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.
Claims 11-17, 21, and 22 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 11 recites “a content consumption logger… a network connectivity prediction engine… a content consumption prediction engine…” in lines 25-35. Lines 14-24 also recites “a content consumption logger… a network connectivity prediction engine… a content consumption prediction engine,” thus suggesting that there are multiple (two) of each of the content consumption loggers, network connectivity prediction engines, and content consumption prediction engines. However, the applicant’s specification only and discloses the system comprising one content consumption logger, network connectivity prediction engine, and content consumption prediction engine (see fig. 1, pages 9-17, [0023]-[0038], of the applicant’s specification). Therefore, it is unclear as to how the system performs functions of the content consumption logger, network connectivity prediction engine, and content consumption prediction engine twice as suggested by the claim limitation.
Claims 12-17, 21, and 22 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite by virtue of being dependent on claim 11.
Claim 21 recites the limitation “the network connectivity prediction engine,” “the first machine learning model,” and “the content consumption prediction engine” in lines 6-7 and 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because it is not clear as to which the network connectivity prediction engine, first machine learning model, and content consumption module being claimed. Claim 11 recites two network connectivity prediction engines, first machine learning models, and content consumption modules.
Claim 22 recites the limitation “the network connectivity prediction engine,” “the first machine learning model,” and “the content consumption prediction engine” in lines 6-7 and 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because it is not clear as to which the network connectivity prediction engine, first machine learning model, and content consumption module being claimed. Claim 11 recites two network connectivity prediction engines, first machine learning models, and content consumption modules.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-7, 9, 10, 19, and 20 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: Regarding claim 1, Wang et al US 20240045783 discloses:
detecting, by a network connectivity module, one or more network connectivity events based on monitoring a network connectivity of the user device;
generating, by a network connectivity logger, a first timestamp log including one or more timestamps of the detected one or more network connectivity events; and
generating, by a content consumption logger, a second timestamp log including one or more timestamps associated with each of the determined consumption of the content by the user.
The instant invention discloses determining, by a content consumption monitoring module, a consumption of the content by the user when the content displayed on the lock screen of the user device including when the user device does not have network connectivity; predicting, by a network connectivity prediction engine configured for using a first machine learning model, a next time interval, within a predefined time duration, during which the user device is unlikely to have the network connectivity, based on the first timestamp log; predicting, by a content consumption prediction engine configured for using a second machine learning model, a first volume of content likely to be consumed by the user in the predefined time duration, based on the second timestamp log; determining by a decision engine based on the predicted first volume of content, a second volume of content likely to be consumed by the user in the predicted next time interval; and sending, by the decision engine, a request to a content server for downloading the determined second volume of content at a time before the predicted next time interval. The above novel features, “in combination” with the other recited limitations in the claim, are not taught, suggested, or made obvious by Wang et al or any other prior art of record, alone, or in combination.
Claims 2-7, 9, 10, 19, and 20 are allowed by virtue of being dependent on claim 1.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Boone et al US 11,909,583 discloses predictive caching in edge devices when connectivity may be lost.
Carbune et al US 11,494,631 discloses using machine learning methods for implementing advance content retrieval for a mobile device.
Benami et al US 11,159,601 discloses providing content to user devices based on expected content need given a SSID of an access point.
Delaney et al US 20210092024 discloses prediction of loss of network connection and caching of content.
Van Gorkom et al US 10,402,037 discloses displaying on a locked screen rich media content and telecommunication information.
Sharma US 20160234290 discloses providing content for offline consumption based on historical connectivity.
Dixon US 9,414,222 discloses predicting future data content that a user of a device may potentially access and consume, and pre-downloading the data content prior to a predicted time the user may access and consume the data.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLUMIDE T AJIBADE AKONAI whose telephone number is (571)272-6496. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-4PM.
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, ROBERT W HODGE can be reached at 571-272-2097. 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.
/OLUMIDE AJIBADE AKONAI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3645