CTNF 18/645,128 CTNF 83629 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. This office action is in response to application 18645128 filed on April 24, 2024. Claims 1-20 are pending. Information Disclosure Statement As required by M.P.E.P. 609(C), the applicant’s submissions of the Information Disclosure Statements dated April 24, 2024 and October 4, 2025 are acknowledged by the examiner and the cited references have been considered in the examination of the claims now pending. As required by M.P.E.P 609, a copy of the PTOL-1449 initialed and dated by the examiner is attached to the office action. Double Patenting 08-33 AIA 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. 08-34 AIA Claim s 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 1-3, 5-7, and 9-10 of U.S. Patent No. US11321105B2 (hereinafter referred to as “the reference patent 1”) . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-20 under examination are anticipated by claims 1-3, 5-7, and 9-10 of the reference patent 1 (see the exemplary mapping of pending claim 1 and claim 1 of the reference patent 1 below, similar mappings can be made to pending claims 2-20 and claims 2-3, 5-7, and 9-10 the reference patent 1) . Regarding claim 1, the reference patent 1 recites: A method comprising: receiving, at a server system, a message via a chat interface presented at a client device (display of a messaging interface at the client device… receiving a query to be performed upon a collection of media content associated with the user profile via the messaging interface)(claim 1; in a messaging interface queries are sent from a client to a server) ; accessing a collection of media content based on the message received from within the chat interface, the collection of media content including a media content (accessing a plurality of media content from among the collection of media content based on the query, the plurality of media content including a media content)(claim 1) ; determining a ranking of the media content among the collection of media content based on an engagement score associated with the media content (ranking the media content among the plurality of media content based on an engagement score associated with the media content)(claim 1) ; selecting the media content based on the ranking (selecting the media content from among the plurality of media content based on the ranking)(claim 1) ; and causing display of a presentation of the media content within the chat interface at the client device (causing display of a presentation of the response to the query within a chat interface at the client device)(claim 1) . 08-34 AIA Claim s 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 1-17 of U.S. Patent No. US12026529B2 (hereinafter referred to as “the reference patent 2”) . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-20 under examination are anticipated by claims 1-17 of the reference patent 2 (see the exemplary mapping of pending claim 1 and claim 1 of the reference patent 2 below, similar mappings can be made to pending claims 2-20 and claims 2-17 the reference patent 2) . Regarding claim 1, the reference patent 2 recites: A method comprising: receiving, at a server system, a message via a chat interface presented at a client device (display of a chat interface ... receiving a message within the chat interface from the client device)(claim 1; in a chat interface queries are sent from a client to a server) ; accessing a collection of media content based on the message received from within the chat interface, the collection of media content including a media content (accessing a collection of media content associated with the user profile based on the message received within the chat interface, the collection of media content including a media content)(claim 1) ; determining a ranking of the media content among the collection of media content based on an engagement score associated with the media content (determining a ranking of the media content among the collection of media content based on an engagement score associated with the media content)(claim 1) ; selecting the media content based on the ranking (selecting the media content based on the ranking)(claim 1) ; and causing display of a presentation of the media content within the chat interface at the client device (causing display of a presentation of the media content within the chat interface)(claim 1) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-2, 6-9, 13-16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koh et al. (US 20190392926A1) in further view of Sarukkai et al. (US 20080060013A1) . Regarding claim 1, Koh teaches a method comprising: receiving, at a server system, a message via a chat interface presented at a client device (The artificial intelligence medical assistant may provide medical information to one or more users in response to user inputs (e.g., queries) within a chat conversation … servers may host the AI medical assistant system... receiving user input provided through the user interface (420), the medical assistant system may identify at least one keyword in the user input (432) … The medical assistant system may be configured to map at least a portion of the keywords and/or synonyms of keywords to a predicted user intent (436))([0003], [0058], [0063], and [0064]; a user’s message (i.e., query) is send to a server for identifying keywords of intent) ; accessing a collection of media content based on the message received from within the chat interface, the collection of media content including a media content (One or more potential medical content can identified based at least in part on the predicted user intent (442). Medical content may be identified by matching the predicted user intent to various content in a medical resource database (e.g., medical encyclopedia))([0065]) ; determining a ranking of the media content among the collection of media content based on … score associated with the media content (relevance scores for multiple content candidates may be ranked (446) (e.g., sorted according to relevance score) in order to identify medical content most likely to be associated with the predicted user intent)([0065]) ; selecting the media content based on the ranking (response to the user input may be generated (450) based at least in part on the ranked relevance scores for content candidates. For example, a content candidate with the highest relevance score may be considered the most suitable content ... and provided in a response to the user)([0068]) ; and causing display of a presentation of the media content within the chat interface at the client device (The medical assistant system may, for example, cause the most relevant content to be displayed on the user interface of the user computing device … FIG. 10B is an exemplary variation of a GUI 1000 b displaying at least one video 1040 within a conversation with the AI medical assistant, such as in response to a user input 1050)([0068] and [0093]; Figure 10B – an exemplary presentation of queried content on a chat interface is shown) . Koh differs from the claim in that Koh fails to teach ranking media content based on an engagement score. However, ranking media content based on an engagement score is taught by Sarukkai (channel processor may uses updated information, such as an updated count of the number of times that a video has been viewed, an updated rating or score, etc., to update the order of videos in a given affected channel)([0047]) . The examiner notes Koh and Sarukkai teach a method for providing media to a user. As such, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Koh to include the ranking of Sarukkai such that the method ranks media content based on engagement score. One would be motivated to make such a combination to provide the advantage of facilitating the retrieval of popular content. Regarding claim 2, Koh-Sarukkai teach the method of claim 1, wherein the engagement score indicates a usage rate of a user subsequent to an exposure to the media content (Sarukkai - an updated count of the number of times that a video has been viewed)([0047]; an updated count indicates usage rate of a user following exposure to video content) . Regarding claim 6, Koh-Sarukkai teach the method of claim 1, wherein the presentation of the media content includes the collection of media content (Koh - FIG. 10B is an exemplary variation of a GUI 1000 b displaying at least one video 1040 within a conversation with the AI medical assistant, such as in response to a user input 1050 ... Multiple videos may be arranged in a “carousel” that a user may navigate to view selected videos)([0093]; Figure 10B – an exemplary presentation of a collection of media content is shown) . Regarding claim 7, Koh-Sarukkai teach the method of claim 1, wherein the accessing the collection of media content based on the message includes: detecting a query that comprises natural language content within the message (Koh - input, such as text-based user input and/or spoken user input)([0006]) ; determining the query based on the natural language content (Koh - user input to be analyzed by the methods and systems ... the conversation simulator may be associated with a natural language processing model)([0006-0007]) ; and selecting the collection of media content based on the query (Koh - natural language processing model may furthermore, for example, determine medical content by mapping the identified keyword and/or at least one synonym of the keyword to at least one medical content candidate)([0007]; a carousel of media content is selected based on a mapping of keywords) . Regarding system claims 8-9 and 13-14, the claims generally correspond to method claims 1-2 and 6-7, respectively, and recite similar features in system form; therefore, the claims are rejected under similar rational. Regarding non-transitory machine-readable storage medium claims 15-16 and 20, the claims generally correspond to method claims 1-2 and 6, respectively, and recite similar features in non-transitory machine-readable storage medium form; therefore, the claims are rejected under similar rational . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 3-5, 10-12, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koh, Sarukkai, and in further view of Amit (WO2014174431A1) . Regarding claim 3, Koh-Sarukkai teach the method applied above, wherein input is received to select the media content from among the presentation of the collection of media content (Koh - Upon display of the generated response with multiple content candidates (470), the user may be presented with the option to select one of the content candidates for proceeding)([0070]) . Koh-Sarukkai differs from the claim in that Koh-Sarukkai fails to teach media content comprises ephemeral content which comprises a display duration and displaying media content based on the display duration. However, ephemeral media content comprising a display duration and displaying ephemeral media content based on the display duration is taught by Amit (Another way of defining said self destruction condition comprises defining a certain time interval beginning from the time said time interval is defined after which said self destructive video is automatically removed)(page 4 lines 9-11) . The examiner notes Koh, Sarukkai, and Amit teach a method for providing media to a user. As such, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Koh-Sarukkai to include the displaying of Amit such that the method displays ephemeral media content which is presented for a time interval. One would be motivated to make such a combination to provide the advantage of preventing the misuse of videos (Amit, page 2 lines 17-18). Regarding claim 4, Koh-Sarukkai-Amit teach the method of claim 3, wherein the media content comprises video data, and the display duration indicates a number of time in which the media content may be played (Amit - One way of defining said self destruction condition comprises defining a certain number of defined views of said self destructive video after which said self destructive video is automatically removed)(page 10 lines 1-3) . Regarding claim 5, Koh-Sarukkai-Amit teach the method of claim 3, wherein the display duration comprises a temporal period in which the media content may be displayed at the client device (Amit - Figure 5 illustrates GUI used to define self destruction condition of a video wherein said condition is time based, i.e., a time interval is set after which the video self destroys)(page 5 lines 9-11) . Regarding system claims 10-12, the claims generally correspond to method claims 3-5, respectively, and recite similar features in system form; therefore, the claims are rejected under similar rational. Regarding non-transitory machine-readable storage medium claims 17-19, the claims generally correspond to method claims 3-5, respectively, and recite similar features in non-transitory machine-readable storage medium form; therefore, the claims are rejected under similar rational. Conclusion The prior art made of record on form PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicant is required under 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(c) to consider the reference fully when responding to this action. The document cited therein and enumerated below teaches a method and apparatus for presenting relevant content to a user. US20160299954A1 US20160299980A1 US20180167472A1 US20180375804A1 US20190057415A1 Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Yongjia Pan whose telephone number is (571)270-1177. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM EST. 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, Scott Baderman can be reached at 571-272-3644. 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. /YONGJIA PAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2118 Application/Control Number: 18/645,128 Page 2 Art Unit: 2118 Application/Control Number: 18/645,128 Page 3 Art Unit: 2118 Application/Control Number: 18/645,128 Page 4 Art Unit: 2118 Application/Control Number: 18/645,128 Page 5 Art Unit: 2118 Application/Control Number: 18/645,128 Page 6 Art Unit: 2118 Application/Control Number: 18/645,128 Page 7 Art Unit: 2118 Application/Control Number: 18/645,128 Page 8 Art Unit: 2118 Application/Control Number: 18/645,128 Page 9 Art Unit: 2118 Application/Control Number: 18/645,128 Page 10 Art Unit: 2118 Application/Control Number: 18/645,128 Page 11 Art Unit: 2118
Prosecution Insights