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 .
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3/26/2026 has been entered.
Examiner’s Note
Examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to
fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 6, 8 and 10, 13, 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Typrin (US 10,002,611) and in view of Pascal et al. (US 2010/0159883).
As to claim 1, Typrin teaches method comprising: receiving, by electronic device ((41) the device 106 may be implemented in a vehicle, in wearable items such as glasses or a watch, or in other shapes and forms) a first speech 502 input from a user, wherein the first speech input comprises: a first command to generate a message, first content for inclusion in the message, and an indication of one or more recipients of the message, Pars.11-12 (The audio may include an indication of the recipient of the message, an action (e.g., to send a message, etc.) and/or other types of information); determining, by the electronic device, second content (additional information that can supplement information in the message).. (69) At 514, the messaging module 142 may determine whether special message information is available in the audio and/or can be added to the message. The special message information may include an expiration time, an urgency, a code, and/or other types of indicia included in the audio and/or discoverable using contextual information.) for inclusion in the message 514-522, wherein determining the second content comprises inferring/deriving at least a portion of the second content based on the first content (Pars.14, 31, 63, 66, 69, 71-72); generating the message 526, wherein the message comprises the first content and the second content; and transmitting 528 the message to the one or more recipients (Figs.1-5).
PNG
media_image1.png
708
442
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Typrin doesn’t explicitly teach where the second content is generated based on the one or more recipients. However, Pascal teaches a message content management system comprising message analyzing module and an inference engine for determining the message content and the target recipients and inferring a second content for inclusion with the message, wherein the inferring is based on the content of the message and the targeted recipients/party (Figs.1-5; Pars.8, 43, 55-57).
PNG
media_image2.png
352
438
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The combination would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of applicant’s invention for the purpose of selectively including contents that are relevant to the recipient.
As to claim 2, Typrin teaches receiving a second speech input from the user, wherein the second speech input comprises a second command to modify the message prior to transmission; responsive to receiving the second speech input: determining, based on at least one of the first content or the second content, third content for inclusion in the message, and prior to transmitting the message, modifying the message to include the third content (Pars.70-71).
As to claims 10 and 13, Typrin teaches obtaining first location data associated with the user, obtaining second location associated with the one or more recipients, and inferring the second content based on the first location data and the second location data and wherein the second content comprises an invitation to an event and a time associated with the event, and wherein the time is inferred based on the first location data and the second location data. (Pars.31, 59, 69, 72, claim 16).
As to claims 15-16, Typrin teaches where the inferred information is a location associated with the message, or a time associated with the message, and wherein the second category of data is another one of: the location associated with the message, or the time associated with the message (Pars.69-71).
As to claim 17, Typrin teaches wherein content of the message is different from the first speech input (Pars.30, 32).
As to claim 18, Typrin teaches determining a transmission time for transmitting the message, wherein the transmission time is determined based on an availability of the one or more recipients, and transmitting the message to the one or more recipients at the transmission time (Pars.59, 69).
Regarding claims 19-20, the corresponding instructions and device comprising the steps similar to claim 1, are analogous therefore rejected as being unpatentable over Typrin and in view of Pascal for the foregoing reasons. Regarding the steps, in claims 19 and 20, where the second content is included based on the claimed elements, Pascal teaches where the selecting of the second contents are based on many factors including relationship data, historical data, age, occupation, race, religion, gender or the like of the recipient as well as contextual factors such as, but not limited to, location, date, time of day, activity, etc. of both (or either) the sender and the user (recipient) (Par.55)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-5, 9, 11, 12 and 14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claims 3-4 are allowable because Typrin doesn’t teach wherein inferring at least the portion of the second content comprises: obtaining calendar data associated with the one or more recipients, and inferring at least the portion of the second content based on the calendar data.
Claims 5, 7, 9, 11-12 and 14 are allowable because Typrin doesn’t teach wherein the second content comprises an invitation to an event and a venue or time associated with the event, and wherein the venue or time is inferred based on weather data or historical data or location data.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual 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/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,948,578. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the reasons set forth in the non-final office action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL DEMELASH ABEBE whose telephone number is (571)272-7615. The examiner can normally be reached monday-friday 7-4.
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, Daniel Washburn can be reached at 571-272-5551. 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.
/DANIEL ABEBE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2657
Prosecution Insights