ETAILED ACTION
Introduction
This office action is in response to applicant’s amendment filed 7/17/26. Claims 1, 3-7, 10, 11, 13-17 and 20-24 are currently pending and have been examined. Applicant’s IDS have been considered. There is no claim to foreign priority.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed 7/17/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of the pending claim(s) under 35 USC 103 (see corresponding remarks and previous office action) have been fully considered and are not fully persuasive.
More specifically, the previously combined references teaches wherein the draft communication comprises at least a communication configured to convey an associated tone comprising a negative tone, and wherein the at least a communication comprises at least an expletive word which conveys the negative tone (Malonescu, paragraph [0032]-his received message, and message customization system, evaluated for content, sentiment/emotion, including curse words, as an expletive word conveying a negative tone, wherein the sentiment/emotion is interpreted as the tone, and profanity/expletives are known to convey negative sentiment), as applied to the amended independent claims.
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed 7/17/2026, with respect to the new claims have been fully considered and are persuasive. However, are rejected over new ground(s) made in view of the previously cited prior art and further in view of Everest (US 2025/0124798). The Examiner also notes that Everest further teaches determining a negative tone, based on profane language, and a toxicity reduction model, which modifies a message based thereon.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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, 3, 10, 13, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DeCharms (US 2024/0273793), in view of Malegaonkar et al. (Malegaonkar, US 2012/0053935), in view of Manolescu et al. (Manolescu, US 2010/0223341), in view of Pisenti (US 2017/009248) and further in view of Link, II (Link, US 2018/0314314).
As per claim 1, DeCharms teaches an apparatus for automated communication improvement, the apparatus comprising:
at least a processor (paragraph [0465]-his processor, memory and executable instructions-hereinafter); and
a memory communicatively connected to the at least processor, wherein the memory contains instructions configuring the at least processor to (ibid):
receive, from a user device, a draft communication to a target (paragraph [0035, 0037, 0165-0170]-his text rewrites, and drafts, including messages in a chat interface from one user to a different user),
wherein the draft communication comprises at least a communication configured to convey an associated tone [comprising a negative tone, and wherein the at least a communication comprises at least an expletive word which conveys the negative tone] (paragraphs [0198, 0049, 0074, 0076]-his tone of the original text, adjusted/modified to match a level);
transcribe the draft communication using an automatic speech recognition system (paragraph [0139]-his speech to text software, as the ASR, for inputting the text into the system, among other method of input) [trained on user-specific speech and configured to decode speech in the draft communication using a modeling process configured to select, from a plurality of candidate word sequences corresponding to the speech, a word sequence having a posterior likelihood as a transcription of the draft communication, and generate, as a function of the posterior likelihood, a transcription confidence representation associated with at least a portion of the draft communication];
receive a context datum (paragraphs [0186-0187]-his prompt to rewrite the text in a particular style, as the context datum), (ibid-his tracking user behavior, content read, etc.);
analyze an appropriateness datum of the associated tone as a function of the context datum and the transcription [confidence] representation (ibid, paragraph [0198]-the appropriateness datum, as the match value, thus appropriate when matching and inappropriate when not matching, the desired context datum with respect to the initial associated tone of the text, the match is based on the converted STT, as the transcription representation which includes the text as transcribed from speech, and the context as described above, which constitute at least some of the elements used in analyzing the appropriateness);
generate a modified communication as a function of the appropriateness datum by inputting the draft communication and the context datum into a style modification large language model, (LLM) and receiving, from the style modification LLM, the modified communication, wherein the style modification LLM modifies at least the associated tone as a function of the appropriateness datum
(ibid, see also paragraphs [0055, 0077, 0198], his rewriting of the text using “large language models” based on the text and context datum as discussed, his AI LLM, modification based on the context as described above, including the tone which is described in conjunction with the appropriateness datum as discussed above); and
transmit the modified communication to the target (ibid-see above chat interface discussion, see also Fig. 10., paragraphs [0226, 0229, 0240-246-his multiple methods of presenting the transmitted communication to target, from audio to video, timed presentations, etc.).
[wherein transmitting the modified communication comprises targeting a time determined as a function of both the appropriateness datum and a user cycle datum, wherein the user cycle datum comprises at least a user response datum associated with a position of a biological cycle of the user, wherein the biological cycle comprises a sleep cycle].
The above combination lacks teaching that which Malegaonkar teaches, transcribe the draft communication using an automatic speech recognition system trained on user-specific speech and configured to decode speech in the draft communication using a modeling process configured to select, from a plurality of candidate word sequences corresponding to the speech, a word sequence having a posterior likelihood as a transcription of the draft communication, and generate, as a function of the posterior likelihood, a transcription confidence representation associated with at least a portion of the draft communication,
analyze an appropriateness datum of the associated tone as a function of the context datum and the transcription confidence representation (paragraphs [0011-0014, 0021-0024, 0054]-as his automatic speech recognition system for a communication, including multiple types, “emails”, as a draft communication, etc., his user-specific trained recognition model/system, and corresponding decoding speech in the communication, from a plurality of word candidates using the probabilities of candidate sequences, having a posterior likelihood as a transcription of the draft communication, wherein the transcription is associated with a confidence representation, see his confidence discussion associated with the audio to text conversion).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the linguistics art, before the effective filing date of the invention, as all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (computer implemented techniques and algorithms combining processes and steps in natural language processing), in view of the teachings of DeCharms and Malegaonkar to combine the prior art element of rewriting a communication, input by speech into a speech to text system, and analyzing an appropriateness datum of the associated tone as a function of the context datum and the transcription representation, to be sent, using context datum as taught by DeCharms, with an automatic speech recognition system, user-specifically trained using posterior probability of word sequence output transcription and confidence scoring, wherein the actual transcribed text has a confidence scoring allowing the most likely word sequence to be selected as taught by Malegaonkar as each element performs the same function as it does separately, as the combination would yield predictable results, KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US. -- 82 USPQ2nd 1385 (2007), wherein the predictable result would be using speech to text to input a draft communication, wherein the STT model, is trained on user-specific data, and having the most likely speech transcription output and used (ibid, DeCharms-STT discussion, and -Malegaonkar-detailing the particulars of a STT/ASR system, see also his abstract).
DeCharms lacks explicitly teaching that which Manolescu teaches
receive, from a user device, a draft communication to a target,
wherein the draft communication comprises at least a communication configured to convey an associated tone comprising a negative tone, and wherein the at least a communication comprises at least an expletive word which conveys the negative tone (paragraph [0032]-his received message, and message customization system, evaluated for content, sentiment/emotion, including curse words, as an expletive word conveying a negative tone, wherein the sentiment/emotion is interpreted as the tone, and profanity/expletives are known to convey negative sentiment).
wherein the context datum is determined as a function of at least digital tracking, wherein the at least digital tracking comprises gathering information using a device fingerprint that allows the user device to be tracked (paragraph [0039, 0042-0045]-as his tracking component, monitoring usage of a communication device, data collection by the tracking component, and corresponding access and specific device information as the device fingerprinting allowing the tracking for that particular device).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the linguistics art, before the effective filing date of the invention, as all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (computer implemented techniques and algorithms combining processes and steps in natural language processing), in view of the teachings of DeCharms and Manolescu to combine the prior art element of rewriting a communication using context datum as taught by DeCharms with analyzing a message for sentiment including classifying the message based on expletives found in the message and having a digital tracking mechanism that collects data specific to a user using the device specific digital information/fingerprint of the user as taught by Manolescu as each element performs the same function as it does separately, as the combination would yield predictable results, KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US. -- 82 USPQ2nd 1385 (2007), wherein the predictable result would be using a digital fingerprint context information for generating modifying data (ibid-DeCharms, Manolescu, paragraph [0032, 0045, 0059]).
The above combination lacks teaching that which Pisenti teaches wherein transmitting the modified communication comprises targeting a time determined as a function of both the appropriateness datum and a user cycle datum, wherein the user cycle datum comprises at least a user response datum associated with a [position of a] biological cycle of the user, wherein the biological cycle comprises a sleep cycle (paragraph [0052-0054, 0073, 0062, 0084]-his sensor information with respect to his asleep and awake, time delay from asleep, his timing and scheduling of when a message is to be delivered, and user response information with respect to the sensor and user’s response data, and corresponding appropriate time parameter for delivery, as an appropriateness datum).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the linguistics art, before the effective filing date of the invention, as all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (computer implemented techniques and algorithms combining processes and steps in natural language processing), in view of the teachings of DeCharms and Pisenti to combine the prior art element of rewriting a communication, to be sent, using context datum, including an appropriateness datum as taught by DeCharms with scheduling a time for a communication to be sent, wherein the time factor is based on a user’s response information, including a time delay until after a user wakes up and also including an appropriateness datum parameter for delivery of the message, as taught by Pisenti as each element performs the same function as it does separately, as the combination would yield predictable results, KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US. -- 82 USPQ2nd 1385 (2007), wherein the predictable result would be triggering a communication to be sent based on a plurality of options, including appropriateness datum and user cycle datum, optimizing user response data, to include user sleeping activity data (ibid-Pisenti, paragraphs [0061, 0062, 0084]).
The above combination lacks explicitly teaching that which Link teaches, transmitting the modified communication comprises targeting a time determined as a function of a user cycle datum, wherein the user cycle datum comprises at least a user response datum associated with a position of a biological cycle of the user, wherein the biological cycle comprises a sleep cycle (paragraphs [0045, 0046]-his communicated message, based on the user being awake, after a predetermined time period as the biological position, wherein the embodiment comprising the user of the smart phone “not asleep” and the predetermined time period unique to each device/user , thus not an immediate communication once the device awake timer, based on the user’s biological cycle of sleep, as determined).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the linguistics art, before the effective filing date of the invention, as all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (computer implemented techniques and algorithms combining processes and steps in natural language processing), in view of the teachings of DeCharms and Pisenti and Link to combine the prior art element of rewriting a communication, to be sent, using context datum as taught by DeCharms with scheduling a time for a communication to be sent, wherein the time factor is based on a user’s response information, including a time delay until after a user wakes up, as taught by Pisenti with using a position of a biological sleep cycle, having a predetermined time period for sending a communication after the user/device is awakened as taught by Link as each element performs the same function as it does separately, as the combination would yield predictable results, KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US. -- 82 USPQ2nd 1385 (2007), wherein the predictable result would be triggering a communication to be sent based on a plurality of options, including having a predetermined biological position, optimizing user response data, to include user sleeping activity data (ibid-Pisenti, paragraphs [0061, 0062, 0084], ibid-Link).
As per claims 3 and 13, DeCharms further makes obvious the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the memory contains instructions configuring the at least a processor to convert the modified communication into a speech format using a speech generation machine learning model trained on user speech training data (ibid-see above modification discussion, see also, paragraphs [0208, 0242- 0244]-his TTS, audio/speech format and AI for adjusting the modified content to be presented in the speech generation).
As per claim 10, DeCharms further makes obvious the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the memory contains instructions configuring the at least a processor to determine the context datum, wherein the context datum comprises a target communication style datum, and wherein the target communication style datum is determined as a function of a record of a prior interaction involving the target (ibid, paragraph [0186, 0187, 0051, 0196]-see his multiple styles, as the target communication style datum, as requested by the user, his rewrite request based on previous user history/interaction material).
As per claim 11, claim 11 sets forth limitations similar to claim 1 and is thus rejected under similar reasons and rationale, wherein the apparatus is deemed to embody the method, such that DeCharms with Malegaonkar with Manolescu with Pisenti with Link make obvious a method of automated communication improvement, the method comprising (DeCharms, paragraph [0003]):
using at least a processor (ibid-see claim 1, corresponding and similar limitation, processor discussion), receiving, from a user device, a draft communication to a target (ibid-see claim 1, corresponding and similar limitation), wherein the draft communication comprises at least a communication configured to convey an associated tone comprising a negative tone, and wherein the at least a communication comprises at least an expletive word which conveys the negative tone (ibid);
using the at least a processor, transcribing the draft communication using an automatic speech recognition system trained on user-specific speech and configured to decode speech in the draft communication using a modeling process configured to select, from a plurality of candidate word sequences corresponding to the speech, a word sequence having a posterior likelihood as a transcription of the draft communication (ibid);
using the at least a processor, receiving a context datum (ibid), wherein the context datum is determined as a function of at least digital tracking, wherein the at least digital tracking comprises gathering information using a device fingerprint that allows the user device to be tracked (ibid); using the at least processor, analyzing an appropriateness datum of the associated tone as a function of the context datum (ibid);using the at least a processor, generating a modified communication as a function of the appropriateness datum by inputting the draft communication and the context datum into a style modification large language model (LLM) and receiving, from the style modification LLM, the modified communication (ibid); and using the at least a processor, transmitting the modified communication to the target (ibid), wherein the transmitting the modified communication comprises targeting a time determined as a function of a user cycle datum, wherein the user cycle datum comprises at least a user response datum associated with a position of a biological cycle of the user, wherein the biological cycle comprises a sleep cycle (ibid).
Claim(s) 4 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DeCharms in view of Malegaonkar in view of Manolescu in view of Pisenti in view of Link, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hou et al. (Hou, US 2022/0398379).
As per claims 4 and 14, DeCharms with Malegaonkar with Manolescu with Pisenti with Link make obvious the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the memory contains instructions configuring the at a least processor to:
receive the style modification LLM (ibid, paragraph [0055]-his “large language model” for rewriting as the style modification); and
[fine-tune] the style modification LLM on a training dataset comprising a plurality of example draft communications and context data correlated to a plurality of example modified communications (ibid-paragraph [0187, 0186]-his machine learning model, trained on relevant domain-specific corpora).
Hou teaches that which DeCharms lacks explicitly teaching, fine-tune the style modification LLM on a training dataset comprising a plurality of example draft communications and context data correlated to a plurality of example modified communications (paragraphs [0013-0014], as his AI model, modifying a text, which is further trained, as fine-tuned, with example modifications).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the linguistics art, before the effective filing date of the invention, as all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (computer implemented techniques and algorithms combining processes and steps in natural language processing), in view of the teachings of DeCharms and Hou to combine the prior art element of rewriting a communication as taught by DeCharms with fine-tuning a machine learning model using example modification training data as taught by Hou as each element performs the same function as it does separately, as the combination would yield predictable results, KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US. -- 82 USPQ2nd 1385 (2007), wherein the predictable result would be employing a fine-tuned AI model for generating modifying data (ibid-Hou).
Claim(s) 5 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DeCharms in view of Malegaonkar in view of Manolescu in view of Pisenti in view of Link, in view of Hou et al. (Hou, US 2022/0398379), as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Hu et al. (Hu, Structure-Aware Low-Rank Adaptation for Parameter-Efficient Fine-Tuning).
As per claims 5 and 15, DeCharms with Malegaonkar with Manolescu with Pisenti with Link with Hou make obvious the apparatus of claim 4, wherein the memory contains instructions configuring the at least a processor to, not explicitly taught by the above combination, yet taught by Hu, fine-tune the style modification LLM using low rank adaptation (pages 3-5-his LoRa, fine-tuning matrix decoupling for low-rank matrices to be updated, and fine-tuning LLMs, for specific tasks, including TST, text style transfer, page 8 section 4.2).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the linguistics art, before the effective filing date of the invention, as all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (computer implemented techniques and algorithms combining processes and steps in natural language processing), in view of the teachings of DeCharms and Hou and Hu to combine the prior art element of rewriting a communication as taught by DeCharms with fine-tuning a machine learning model using example modification training data as taught by Hou with fine-tuning using LoRa as taught by Hu as each element performs the same function as it does separately, as the combination would yield predictable results, KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US. -- 82 USPQ2nd 1385 (2007), wherein the predictable result would be employing an efficient fine-tuned AI model for generating modifying data (ibid-Hou, Hu-abstract).
Claim(s) 6, 7, 16 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DeCharms in view of Malegaonkar in view of Manolescu in view of Pisenti in view of Link, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lockhart (US 2012/02259926).
As per claims 6 and 16, DeCharms with Malegaonkar with Manolescu with Pisenti with Link make obvious the apparatus of claim 1, but lacks teaching that which Lockhart teaches, wherein the memory contains instructions configuring the at least a processor to:
receive, from the user device, a user activity datum (paragraph [0183]-user activity schedule is received); and
transmit the [modified] communication to the target at a time determined as a function of the user activity datum (ibid-transmission of a message is determined based as a function of the user activity schedule, the target time is set/adjusted based on the user determined activity information).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the linguistics art, before the effective filing date of the invention, as all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (computer implemented techniques and algorithms combining processes and steps in natural language processing), in view of the teachings of DeCharms and Lockhart to combine the prior art element of rewriting a communication that is transmitted to a target as taught by DeCharms with transmitting a communication based on a user activity information as taught by Lockhart as each element performs the same function as it does separately, as the combination would yield predictable results, KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US. -- 82 USPQ2nd 1385 (2007), wherein the predictable result would be transmitting the communication at an optimum time based on a user’s activity attributes that may be tracked or monitored (ibid-Lockhart).
As per claims 7 and 17, DeCharms with Malegaonkar with Manolescu with Pisenti with Link make obvious the apparatus of claim 1, but lacks teaching that which Lockhart teaches, wherein the memory contains instructions configuring the at least a processor to:
receive, from the user device, a user cycle datum (paragraphs [0089, 0090]-his setting of a timing for transmission of text messages); and
transmit the [modified] communication to the target at a time determined as a function of the user cycle datum (ibid-the transmission, based on the user- based attributes regarding physiological features, such as readiness to receive the text messages).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the linguistics art, before the effective filing date of the invention, as all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (computer implemented techniques and algorithms combining processes and steps in natural language processing), in view of the teachings of DeCharms and Lockhart to combine the prior art element of rewriting a communication that is transmitted to a target as taught by DeCharms with transmitting a communication based on a cycle information as taught by Lockhart as each element performs the same function as it does separately, as the combination would yield predictable results, KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US. -- 82 USPQ2nd 1385 (2007), wherein the predictable result would be transmitting the communication at an optimum time based on a user’s cycle information that may be tracked or monitored (ibid-Lockhart).
Claim(s) 21 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DeCharms (US 2024/0273793) in view of Malegaonkar in view of Manolescu et al. (Manolescu, US 2010/0223341) and further in view of Pisenti (US 2017/009248) and further in view of Link, II (Link, US 2018/0314314) in view of Jackson et al. (Jackson, US 2024/0096467).
As per claims 21 and 22, DeCharms with Malegaonkar with Manolescu with Pisenti with Link make obvious the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the memory contains instructions further configuring the at least a processor to: receive, from the user device, a user cycle datum, wherein the user cycle datum comprises at least a user response datum associated with a position of a biological cycle of the user, wherein the biological cycle further comprises a [menstrual] cycle (ibid-see claim 1, corresponding and similar limitation); and
transmit the modified communication to the target at a time determined as a function of the user cycle datum (ibid-see claim 1, corresponding and similar limitation).
The above combination lacks teaching that which Jackson teaches a position of a biological cycle of the user, wherein the biological cycle further comprises a menstrual cycle (Figs. 1, 3, paragraph [0145, 0146]-his input of the menstrual cycle information).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the linguistics art, before the effective filing date of the invention, as all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (computer implemented techniques and algorithms combining processes and steps in natural language processing), in view of the teachings of DeCharms and Pisenti and Link and Jackson to combine the prior art element of rewriting a communication, to be sent, using context datum as taught by DeCharms with scheduling a time for a communication to be sent, wherein the time factor is based on a user’s response information, including a time delay until after a user wakes up, as taught by Pisenti with using a position of a biological sleep cycle, having a predetermined time period for sending a communication after the user/device is awakened as taught by Link with inputting a biological cycle, such as a menstrual cycle as taught by Jackson as each element performs the same function as it does separately, as the combination would yield predictable results, KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US. -- 82 USPQ2nd 1385 (2007), wherein the predictable result would be triggering a communication to be sent based on a plurality of options, including having a predetermined biological position, optimizing user response data, to include user sleeping activity, or menstrual activity, data (ibid-Pisenti, paragraphs [0061, 0062, 0084], ibid-Link, ibid-Jackson, see also abstract and Fig. 3, paragraphs [0140-0144]).
Claim(s) 23 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DeCharms (US 2024/0273793), in view of Malegaonkar et al. (Malegaonkar, US 2012/0053935), in view of Manolescu et al. (Manolescu, US 2010/0223341), in view of Pisenti (US 2017/009248) in view of Link, II (Link, US 2018/0314314), and further in view of Everest (US 2025/0124798).
As per claims 23 and 24, DeCharms with Malegaonkar with Manolescu with Pisenti with Link make obvious the apparatus of claim 1, but lack that which Everest teaches wherein the automatic speech recognition system further comprises a hidden Markov model (HMM) (paragraph [0029] his ASR model which utilizes an HMM).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the linguistics art, before the effective filing date of the invention, as all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (computer implemented techniques and algorithms combining processes and steps in natural language processing), in view of the teachings of DeCharms and Everest to combine the prior art element of an ASR model receiving a communication via speech input, and rewriting the communication, to be sent, using context datum as taught by DeCharms with an ASR process that employs Hidden Markov Models, as each element performs the same function as it does separately, as the combination would yield predictable results, KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US. -- 82 USPQ2nd 1385 (2007), wherein the predictable result would be using a well-known model for processing temporal and probabilistic features of speech signals, thus taking the input and utilizing it in a future process, such as toxicity reduction in a message, including sanitized a message of profane, expletive, content (ibid-Everest, see also paragraphs [0029-0031, 0065]).
Conclusion
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Everest (US 2025/0124798) teaches a modification model, which includes a toxicity reduction model, that determines undesirable themes, as negative tone, and removes profanity and other toxic content.
Everest further teaches an automatic speech recognition process that employs a hidden Markov model.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAMONT M SPOONER whose telephone number is (571)272-7613. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 AM -5:00 PM.
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 on (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.
/LAMONT M SPOONER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2657
7/28/26
Prosecution Insights