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 .
Acknowledgement
Acknowledgement is made of applicant’s amendment made on 12/21/2025. Applicant’s submission filed has been entered and made of record.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Response to Applicant’s Arguments
In response to “Thus, Shevchenko is silent with respect to at least the following limitations of claim 1, where the communication profile used to generate the suggested text indicates "a syntax style corresponding to a greater response rate of the second user."”.
The scope of response rate is broad. For example, a response rate or rating may be a classification or ranking of the second user’s response to a communication in a particular writing style being positive.
Shevchenko discloses an artificial intelligent assistant (AIA ) allowing a first user specifying a second user / receiver (Col 58, Rows 25-26), the AIA prompts the user to specify desired reaction of the receiver such as a positive response (Col 58, Rows 40-43), the AIA prepares content and context in association with accessed communication profiles (Col 59, Rows 19-21), and AIA passes information accessed in communication profiles to provide recommendations on how to communicate with the receiver (Col 59, Rows 55-67) to utilize the communication profiles and context to compose user content / communication in a way that maximizes the probability of the receiver reacting positively (Col 57, Rows 63-67), where a user’s communication profile includes an individual’s syntactic features (Col 51, Rows 58-59).
In particular, a composition module helps the user to compose communications by guiding the user by suggesting structure to fill in content (Col 61, Rows 66-67) and generate language that would maximize the probability of a positive outcome or reaction by the receiver given the context (Col 62, Rows 29-32).
In other words, Shevchenko discloses based on a receiver profile including the receiver’s syntactic features and writing style, generate suggested language maximizing the probability that the receiver would respond positively to (i.e., response rating of the second user being positive).
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as claiming the same invention as that of the claims in U.S. Patent No. 12154556 B2. This is a statutory double patenting rejection.
US 12154556 B2 18597703
1. A system comprising:
in response to a request of a first user to communicate with at least one user, obtaining a first communication profile for the first user and a second communication profile for a second user, the first communication profile being generated based on first electronic transcripts associated with the first user, the second communication profile (i) being generated based on second electronic transcripts associated with the second user and (ii) indicating a syntax style corresponding to a favorable response rate of the second user; generating, based on the first and second communication profiles, suggested text in the syntax style corresponding to the favorable response rate of the second user, the suggested text being for a first message for the first user to communicate with the second user; and
transmitting the first message comprising the suggested text in the syntax style to the first user.
1. A system comprising:
in response to a request of a first user to communicate with at least one user, obtaining a communication profile for a second user, the communication profile being generated based on electronic transcripts associated with the second user, the communication profile (i) being generated based on electronic transcripts associated with the second user and (ii) indicating a syntax style corresponding to a greater response rate of the second user; generating, based on the communication profile, suggested text in the syntax style corresponding to the greater response rate of the second user, the suggested text being for a first message for the first user to communicate with the second user; and
transmitting the first message comprising the suggested text in the syntax style to the first user.
5. A method comprising:
obtaining a request of a first user to communicate with at least one user; obtaining a communication profile for a second user, the communication profile (i) being generated based on electronic transcripts associated with the second user and (ii) indicating a writing style corresponding to a favorable response rate of the second user;
generating, based on the communication profile, suggested text in the writing style corresponding to the favorable response rate of the second user, the suggested text being for a first message for the first user to communicate with the second user; and causing presentation of the first message comprising the suggested text in the writing style to the first user.
5. A method comprising:
obtaining a request of a first user to communicate with at least one user; obtaining a communication profile for a second user, the communication profile (i) being generated based on electronic transcripts associated with the second user and (ii) indicating a writing style corresponding to a response rate of the second user;
generating, based on the communication profile, suggested text in the writing style corresponding to the response rate of the second user, the suggested text being for a first message for the first user to communicate with the second user; and causing presentation of the first message comprising the suggested text in the writing style to the first user.
13. One or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause operations comprising:
obtaining a request of a first user to communicate with at least one user; obtaining a communication profile for a second user, the communication profile (i) being generated based on electronic transcripts associated with the second user and (ii) indicating a writing style corresponding to a favorable response rate of the second user;
generating, based on the communication profile, suggested text in the writing style corresponding to the favorable response rate of the second user, the suggested text being for a first message for the first user to communicate with the second user; and causing presentation of the first message comprising the suggested text in the writing style to the first user.
13. One or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause operations comprising:
obtaining a request of a first user to communicate with at least one user; obtaining a communication profile for a second user, the communication profile (i) being generated based on electronic transcripts associated with the second user and (ii) indicating a writing style corresponding to a response rate of the second user;
generating, based on the communication profile, suggested text in the writing style corresponding to the response rate of the second user, the suggested text being for a first message for the first user to communicate with the second user; and causing presentation of the first message comprising the suggested text in the writing style to the first user.
Limitations of claim 2 in the instant application correspond to the combination of limitations set forth in claim 2 of US 12154556 B2.
Limitations of claim 3 in the instant application correspond to the combination of limitations set forth in claim 3 of US 12154556 B2.
Limitations of claim 4 in the instant application correspond to the combination of limitations set forth in claim 4 of US 12154556 B2.
Limitations of claims 6 and 14 in the instant application correspond to the combination of limitations set forth in claim 6 and 14 of US 12154556 B2.
Limitations of claims 7 and 15 in the instant application correspond to the combination of limitations set forth in claim 7 and 15 of US 12154556 B2.
Limitations of claims 8 and 16 in the instant application correspond to the combination of limitations set forth in claim 8 and 16 of US 12154556 B2.
Limitations of claims 9 and 17 in the instant application correspond to the combination of limitations set forth in claim 9 and 17 of US 12154556 B2.
Limitations of claims 10 and 18 in the instant application correspond to the combination of limitations set forth in claim 10 and 18 of US 12154556 B2.
Limitations of claims 11 and 19 in the instant application correspond to the combination of limitations set forth in claim 11 and 19 of US 12154556 B2.
Limitations of claims 12 and 20 in the instant application correspond to the combination of limitations set forth in claim 12 and 20 of US 12154556 B2.
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
(a) NOVELTY; PRIOR ART.—A person shall be entitled to a patent unless—
(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention; or
(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(b) EXCEPTIONS.—
(1) DISCLOSURES MADE 1 YEAR OR LESS BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE FILING DATE OF THE CLAIMED INVENTION.—A disclosure made 1 year or less before the effective filing date of a claimed invention shall not be prior art to the claimed invention under subsection (a)(1) if—
(A) the disclosure was made by the inventor or joint inventor or by another who obtained the subject matter disclosed directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor; or
(B) the subject matter disclosed had, before such disclosure, been publicly disclosed by the inventor or a joint inventor or another who obtained the subject matter disclosed directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor.
(2) DISCLOSURES APPEARING IN APPLICATIONS AND PATENTS.—A disclosure shall not be prior art to a claimed invention under subsection (a)(2) if—
(A) the subject matter disclosed was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor;
(B) the subject matter disclosed had, before such subject matter was effectively filed under subsection (a)(2), been publicly disclosed by the inventor or a joint inventor or another who obtained the subject matter disclosed directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor; or
(C) the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, were owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person.
Claims 5-6, 9-14, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 USC 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Shevchenko et al. (US 11620566 B1).
Regarding claims 5 and 13, Shevchenk discloses one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause operations of the system (Col 83, Rows 5-23, processor executing program instructions stored on machine readable media per Col 85, Rows 27-32) comprising:
obtaining a request of a first user to communicate with at least one user (Col 48, Rows 57-67 and Col 58, Rows 4-12 and Rows 25-26, where a user generates a communication as an input and selects a second user as a receiver of the communication);
obtaining a communication profile for a second user (Col 47, Rows 54-56 and Col 59, Rows 19-21, access receiver communication profile), the communication profile (i) being generated based on electronic transcripts associated with the second user (Col 49, Rows 41-44 and Col 50, Rows 34-37, learn and update a communication profile of a person by analyzing their outgoing communication; i.e., data associated with content of communications per Col 53, Rows 9-10; Col 52, Rows 44-54, communication profiles include information about what a user may write such as the results of statistical analysis of the user’s content; per Col 74, Rows 11-16, user’s content includes verbal content extracted from speech to text conversion) and (ii) indicating a writing style corresponding to a response rate of the second user (Col 47, Rows 58-59 and Col 53, Rows 44-50, communication profiles comprise characteristics such as writing style; Col 60, Rows 25-27 and 38-41, formats and styles that the receiver responds to most positively and consistently (i.e., rating of the receiver’s response being positive) based on sentiment analysis of responses and the distribution of time to respond, with expected response time based on historic data on receiver’s typical response time in the same or similar communication scenario (i.e., communication with the same or similar writing style));
generating, based on the communication profile, suggested text in the writing style corresponding to the response rate of the second user, the suggested text being for a first message for the first user to communicate with the second user (Col 61, Row 62 – Col 62, Row 9, composition module helps user compose communications by suggesting structure to fill in content such as predicting the next word, phrase, sentence, paragraph, or an entire message / communication in order to maximize the probability of positive reaction by the receiver per Col 62, Rows 29-32; i.e., writing communication in a style corresponding to response rating / classification of the second user being positive); and
causing presentation of the first message comprising the suggested text in the writing style to the first user (Col 60, Rows 38-43, recommend formats and styles that match / mimic the receiver’s prevalent communication styles and format; Figs. 4-5, interactive feedback 406 to user / sender 404; per Col 61, Rows 29-45, communication transformation module 418 provides interactive feedback such as presenting template and textual completion options for the user to preview and select).
Regarding claims 6 and 14, Shevchenk discloses wherein generating the suggested text in the syntax style comprises generating, based on the first and second communication profiles, the suggested text in accordance with a sentence length parameter corresponding to the response rate of the second user (Col 54, Rows 53-61, generate revisions to make communication more likely to spark the desired reaction based on receiver’s communication profile; i.e., Col 68, Rows 51-56, rewriting messages by splitting long sentences, replacing long words with shorter, more common synonyms).
Regarding claims 9 and 17, Shevchenk discloses wherein generating the suggested text in the writing style comprises generating, based on the communication profile for the second user and at least one communication profile for the first user (Col 47, Rows 54-56, access a user communication profile and receiver communication profile), the suggested text in the writing style corresponding to the response rate of the second user (Col 61, Row 62 – Col 62, Row 9, composition module helps user compose communications by suggesting structure to fill in content such as predicting the next word, phrase, sentence, paragraph, or an entire message / communication in order to maximize the probability of positive reaction by the receiver per Col 62, Rows 29-32; e.g., Col 56, Rows 1-6, review the draft, use language modules to check for grammatical errors, recognize the goal to impress the receiver, and transform the text into a more formal style; see further Col 60, Rows 40-44, recommend formats and styles that match / mimic the receiver’s prevalent communication style and format), the at least one communication profile being generated based on one or more electronic transcripts associated with the first user (Col 49, Rows 41-44 and Col 50, Rows 34-37, learn and update a communication profile of a person by analyzing their outgoing communication; i.e., data associated with content of communications per Col 53, Rows 9-10; Col 52, Rows 44-54, communication profiles include information about what a user may write such as the results of statistical analysis of the user’s content; per Col 74, Rows 11-16, user’s content includes verbal content extracted from speech to text conversion).
Regarding claims 10 and 18, Shevchenk discloses wherein causing the suggested text to be presented on a user interface with other suggestions, the other suggestions (i) being in writing styles respectively corresponding to response rates of the second user (Col 61, Row 62 – Col 62, Row 9, composition module helps user compose communications by suggesting structure to fill in content such as predicting the next word, phrase, sentence, paragraph, or an entire message / communication in order to maximize the probability of positive reaction by the receiver per Col 62, Rows 29-32; i.e., Col 60, Rows 40-44, recommend formats and styles that match / mimic the receiver’s prevalent communication style and format) and (ii) generated based on the communication profile and at least one communication profile for the first user (Col 47, Rows 54-56, access a user communication profile and receiver communication profile), the at least one communication profile being generated based on one or more electronic transcripts associated with the first user (Col 49, Rows 41-44 and Col 50, Rows 34-37, learn and update a communication profile of a person by analyzing their outgoing communication; i.e., data associated with content of communications per Col 53, Rows 9-10; Col 52, Rows 44-54, communication profiles include information about what a user may write such as the results of statistical analysis of the user’s content; per Col 74, Rows 11-16, user’s content includes verbal content extracted from speech to text conversion).
Regarding claims 11 and 19, Shevchenk discloses wherein generating the communication profile comprises generating the communication profile based on timing information related to how quickly the second user responded to communications in the electronic transcripts (Col 59, Rows 55-63 and Col 60, Rows 1-5, Rows 25-27, access communication profiles to determine receiver’s characteristics such as receiver’s expected or average response time (based on historic data on receiver’s typical response time in the same or similar communication scenarios) for communication transformation module 418 to provide advice to the user and communication composition assistance).
Regarding claims 12 and 20, Shevchenk discloses wherein the suggested text comprises a conversation opener likely to elicit a response from the second user (Col 60, Rows 36-40, provide recommendations on formats and styles that the receiver responds to most positively and consistently based on receiver’s communication patterns; Col 62, Rows 62-63, rewrite a given user’s message to optimize for a desired reaction; in particular, Col 58, Rows 25-35, when user specifies a second user with the goal of the communication being “greeting”, composition module helps user composes communications (Col 61, Rows 63-67) by suggesting communication templates (Col 62, Rows 13-17) for introductions and greetings (Col 63, Rows 6-10)) that is derived from the writing style corresponding to the response rate of the second user (Col 60, Rows 38-43, recommend formats and styles that the receiver responds to most positively).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 103 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made 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 1-2 are rejected under 35 USC 103(a) as being unpatentable over Shevchenko et al. (US 11620566 B1) in view of Vratskides et al. (US 9741043 B2).
Regarding Claim 1, Shevchenk discloses a system (Fig. 4) comprising:
in response to a request of a first user to communicate with at least one user (Col 48, Rows 57-67 and Col 58, Rows 4-12 and Rows 25-26, where a user generates a communication as an input and selects a second user as a receiver of the communication), obtaining a communication profile for a second user (Col 47, Rows 54-56 and Col 59, Rows 19-21, access receiver communication profile), the communication profile being generated based on electronic transcripts associated with the second user (Col 49, Rows 41-44 and Col 50, Rows 34-37, learn and update a communication profile of a person by analyzing their outgoing communication; i.e., data associated with content of communications per Col 53, Rows 9-10; Col 52, Rows 44-54, communication profiles include information about what a user may write such as the results of statistical analysis of the user’s content; per Col 74, Rows 11-16, user’s content includes verbal content extracted from speech to text conversion) and indicating a syntax style corresponding to a response rate of the second user (Col 51, Rows 58-60, communication profiles include an individual’s syntactic features; Col 54, Rows 48-61, using receiver’s communication profile to predict whether a communication is likely to cause a desired reaction from the receiver (e.g., Col 58, Rows 40-43, desired reaction such as positive response); Col 60, Rows 38-43, recommend formats and styles (i.e., syntactic features) that receiver responds to most positively and recommend formats and styles that match / mimic the receiver’s prevalent communication styles and format; i.e., receiver’s style or syntactic feature correspond to positive responses from the receiver);
generating, based on the communication profile (Col 48, Rows 62-64, receive and process communication input with respect to receiver communication profile; per Col 53, Rows 19-22, using individual communication profile for targeted receiver to generate unique communications for each receiver), suggested text in the style corresponding to the response rate of the second user, the suggested text being for a first message for the first user to communicate with the second user (Col 61, Row 62 – Col 62, Row 9, composition module helps user compose communications by suggesting structure to fill in content such as predicting the next word, phrase, sentence, paragraph, or an entire message / communication in order to maximize the probability of positive reaction by the receiver per Col 62, Rows 29-32); and
transmitting the first message comprising the suggested text in the syntax style to the first user (Col 60, Rows 38-43, recommend formats and styles that match / mimic the receiver’s prevalent communication styles (e.g., receiver’s syntactic features) and format; Figs. 4-5, interactive feedback 406 to user / sender 404; per Col 61, Rows 29-45, communication transformation module 418 provides interactive feedback such as presenting template and textual completion options for the user to preview and select).
Shevchenk does not disclose generating suggested text in the syntax style corresponding to greater response rate of the second user.
Vratskides discloses a system for optimizing a message to a receiver (Abstract) by generating a communication profile of the receiver based on communication message indicating a syntax style corresponding to greater response rate of the receiver (Col 5, Rows 3-6, input short message into the system; Col 5, Rows 7-13, generate syntactic combinations based on rearrangement of vectors representing the short message input; Col 6, Rows 37-58, Fig. 5, step 572-574; see also Claim 1: “sending a plurality of the syntactical variants of the identified best performing lexical variants to one or more communication devices…measuring a response rate for each of the sent syntactical variants, and identifying a message text having the highest measured response rate for the sent syntactical variants”) and generating, based on the communication profile, suggested text for a first message to communicate with the receiver in the syntax style corresponding to the greater response rate of the receiver (Col 6, Rows 46-58, at step 574-580, select message of the syntactical variant with the highest response rate / criteria to send to the users at step 590).
It would’ve been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to generate or learn the second user’s communication profile based on electronic transcript / message indicating a syntax style corresponding to a greater response rate of the second user (compare Shevchenk, Col 60, Rows 5-15 and 25-27) and generate suggested text for the first message from the first user to the second user in the syntax style corresponding to the greater response rate of the second user in order to provide optimal composition of message / communication that delivers an optimized response (Vratskides, Col 2, Rows 43-44).
Regarding claim 2, Shevchenk discloses wherein generating the suggested text in the syntax style comprises generating, based on the communication profile, the suggested text in accordance with a sentence length parameter corresponding to the greater response rate of the second user (Col 54, Rows 53-61, generate revisions to make communication more likely to spark the desired reaction based on receiver’s communication profile; i.e., Col 68, Rows 51-56, rewriting messages by splitting long sentences, replacing long words with shorter, more common synonyms).
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 USC 103(a) as being unpatentable over Shevchenko et al. (US 11620566 B1) and Vratskides et al. (US 9741043 B2) as applied to claim 1, in view of Abe et al. (US 2020/0233908 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Shevchenk discloses wherein generating the suggested text in the syntax style comprises generating, based on the communication profile (Col 48, Rows 62-64, receive and process communication input with respect to a user communication profile and receiver communication profile; per Col 53, Rows 19-22, using individual communication profile for targeted receiver to generate unique communications for each receiver), the suggested text in the syntax style corresponding to a response rate of the second user that is maximized (Col 61, Row 62 – Col 62, Row 9, composition module helps user compose communications by suggesting structure to fill in content such as predicting the next word, phrase, sentence, paragraph, or an entire message / communication in order to maximize the probability of positive reaction by the receiver per Col 62, Rows 29-32; i.e., Col 60, Rows 40-44, recommend formats and styles that match / mimic the receiver’s prevalent communication style and format).
Shevchenk does not disclose the suggested text in the syntax style corresponding to a response rate of the second user that is greater than 50%.
Abe teaches generating a response by modifying a response utterance based on a recipient’s positive response rate that is greater than 50% (Abstract and see ¶36, score representing probability for an emotion; ¶43, determine absolute value difference between positive value P of input utterance 52 stored in score storage unit 154 of input utterance emotion estimating unit 120 and a positive value Psystem of response utterance original sentence 220 stored in score storage unit 244 is 0.5 or larger; i.e., maximizing the probability of system generated response having positive emotion of greater than 0.5).
It would’ve been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to maximize the response rate of the second user / receiver to have a positive response / reaction of greater than 50% to thereby generate and output a response (Abe, Abstract; compare Shevchenk Col, 62, Rows 30-32, maximizing the probability of positive reaction by the receiver to be greater than 0.5; i.e., more likely than not to be positive).
Regarding claim 4, Shevchenk discloses wherein generating the suggested text in the syntax style comprises generating, based on the communication profile (Col 48, Rows 62-64, receive and process communication input with respect to a user communication profile and receiver communication profile; per Col 53, Rows 19-22, using individual communication profile for targeted receiver to generate unique communications for each receiver), the suggested text in the syntax style corresponding to a probability of a positive response of the second user that is maximized (Col 61, Row 62 – Col 62, Row 9, composition module helps user compose communications by suggesting structure to fill in content such as predicting the next word, phrase, sentence, paragraph, or an entire message / communication in order to maximize the probability of positive reaction by the receiver per Col 62, Rows 29-32; i.e., Col 60, Rows 40-44, recommend formats and styles that match / mimic the receiver’s prevalent communication style and format).
Shevchenk does not disclose the suggested text in the syntax style corresponding to a probability of a positive response of the second user greater than 50%.
Abe teaches generating a response by modifying a response utterance based on a recipient’s positive response rate that is greater than 50% (Abstract and see ¶36, score representing probability for an emotion; ¶43, determine absolute value difference between positive value P of input utterance 52 stored in score storage unit 154 of input utterance emotion estimating unit 120 and a positive value Psystem of response utterance original sentence 220 stored in score storage unit 244 is 0.5 or larger; i.e., maximizing the probability of system generated response having positive emotion of greater than 0.5).
It would’ve been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to maximize the response rate of the second user / receiver to have a positive response / reaction of greater than 50% to thereby generate and output a response (Abe, Abstract; compare Shevchenk Col, 62, Rows 30-32, maximizing the probability of positive reaction by the receiver to be greater than 0.5; i.e., more likely than not to be positive).
Claims 7-8 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 USC 103(a) as being unpatentable over Shevchenko et al. (US 11620566 B1) in view of Abe et al. (US 2020/0233908 A1).
Regarding claims 7 and 15, Shevchenk discloses wherein generating the suggested text in the writing style comprises generating, based on the first and second communication profiles (Col 48, Rows 62-64, receive and process communication input with respect to a user communication profile and receiver communication profile; per Col 53, Rows 19-22, using individual communication profile for targeted receiver to generate unique communications for each receiver), the suggested text in the syntax style corresponding to the response rate of the second user that is maximized (Col 61, Row 62 – Col 62, Row 9, composition module helps user compose communications by suggesting structure to fill in content such as predicting the next word, phrase, sentence, paragraph, or an entire message / communication in order to maximize the probability of positive reaction by the receiver per Col 62, Rows 29-32; i.e., Col 60, Rows 40-44, recommend formats and styles that match / mimic the receiver’s prevalent communication style and format).
Shevchenk does not disclose the suggested text in the syntax style corresponding to a response rate of the second user that is greater than 50%.
Abe teaches generating a response by modifying a response utterance based on a recipient’s positive response rate that is greater than 50% (Abstract and see ¶36, score representing probability for an emotion; ¶43, determine absolute value difference between positive value P of input utterance 52 stored in score storage unit 154 of input utterance emotion estimating unit 120 and a positive value Psystem of response utterance original sentence 220 stored in score storage unit 244 is 0.5 or larger; i.e., maximizing the probability of system generated response having positive emotion of greater than 0.5).
It would’ve been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to maximize the response rate of the second user / receiver to have a positive response / reaction of greater than 50% to thereby generate and output a response (Abe, Abstract; compare Shevchenk Col, 62, Rows 30-32, maximizing the probability of positive reaction by the receiver to be greater than 0.5; i.e., more likely than not to be positive).
Regarding claims 8 and 16, Shevchenk discloses wherein generating the suggested text in the syntax style comprises generating, based on the first and second communication profiles (Col 48, Rows 62-64, receive and process communication input with respect to a user communication profile and receiver communication profile; per Col 53, Rows 19-22, using individual communication profile for targeted receiver to generate unique communications for each receiver), the suggested text in the syntax style corresponding to a probability of a positive response of the second user that is maximized (Col 61, Row 62 – Col 62, Row 9, composition module helps user compose communications by suggesting structure to fill in content such as predicting the next word, phrase, sentence, paragraph, or an entire message / communication in order to maximize the probability of positive reaction by the receiver per Col 62, Rows 29-32; i.e., Col 60, Rows 40-44, recommend formats and styles that match / mimic the receiver’s prevalent communication style and format).
Shevchenk does not disclose the suggested text in the syntax style corresponding to a probability of a positive response of the second user greater than 50%.
Abe teaches generating a response by modifying a response utterance based on a recipient’s positive response rate that is greater than 50% (Abstract and see ¶36, score representing probability for an emotion; ¶43, determine absolute value difference between positive value P of input utterance 52 stored in score storage unit 154 of input utterance emotion estimating unit 120 and a positive value Psystem of response utterance original sentence 220 stored in score storage unit 244 is 0.5 or larger; i.e., maximizing the probability of system generated response having positive emotion of greater than 0.5).
It would’ve been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to maximize the response rate of the second user / receiver to have a positive response / reaction of greater than 50% to thereby generate and output a response (Abe, Abstract; compare Shevchenk Col, 62, Rows 30-32, maximizing the probability of positive reaction by the receiver to be greater than 0.5; i.e., more likely than not to be positive).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new grounds 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to examiner Richard Z. Zhu whose telephone number is 571-270-1587 or examiner’s supervisor Hai Phan whose telephone number is 571-272-6338. Examiner Richard Zhu can normally be reached on M-Th, 0730:1700.
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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RICHARD Z ZHU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2654 03/21/2026