Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/744,411

CREATING AND DISSEMINATING OF USER GENERATED CONTENT OVER A NETWORK

Final Rejection §103§112§DP
Filed
Jun 14, 2024
Examiner
SALOMON, PHENUEL S
Art Unit
2146
Tech Center
2100 — Computer Architecture & Software
Assignee
Playvuu Inc.
OA Round
4 (Final)
73%
Grant Probability
Favorable
5-6
OA Rounds
3y 4m
To Grant
91%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 73% — above average
73%
Career Allow Rate
519 granted / 715 resolved
+17.6% vs TC avg
Strong +18% interview lift
Without
With
+18.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 4m
Avg Prosecution
23 currently pending
Career history
738
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
12.8%
-27.2% vs TC avg
§103
52.8%
+12.8% vs TC avg
§102
15.9%
-24.1% vs TC avg
§112
7.6%
-32.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 715 resolved cases

Office Action

§103 §112 §DP
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions. DETAILED ACTION 1. This office action is in response to the amendment filed on 09/03/2025. Claims 1-22 are pending and have been considered below. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 2. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. Claims 10-13 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 10 and 22 recite the limitation “generate fully customized lyrics.” The term “fully customized” is not clearly defined in the specification, contrary to Applicant’s assertions. It is unclear what specifically constitutes a “fully customized lyric,” as the specification merely discloses that “song lyrics can be automatically generated by the lyric mechanism based on keywords” (specification, page 27, lines 6–10). The lack of a clear definition for the term “fully customized lyrics” renders the scope of the claim uncertain. As set forth in MPEP §2173.02, claims are indefinite when they contain words or phrases whose meaning is unclear. Furthermore, in Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 572 U.S. 898 (2014), the Supreme Court held that a patent must inform, with reasonable certainty, those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention. Accordingly, the term “fully customized lyrics” fails to inform a person of ordinary skill in the art, with reasonable certainty, of the metes and bounds of the claimed invention. Applicant is required to amend the claims and/or specification to clearly define what is meant by “fully customized lyrics.” Claims 11-13 are rejected on the same grounds on their dependency from the rejected claim 10. Double Patenting 3. 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, 5 and 10 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 10 and 13 of U.S. Patent No. 11,595,612 in view of Cohen et al. (US 2009/0164034). Application No.18/744411 US Patent No. 11,595,612 Claim 1: A system for creating audio/video content over a network, comprising: a processing unit; a camera; a microphone; a digital storage device, comprising executable software instructions that program the processing unit to: process a user request to begin content creation,; retrieve, over a network, a list of audio compositions from a library of audio compositions; generate a user interface element to present the list of audio compositions to the user; process a user selection of an audio composition from the list of audio compositions; receive a user input comprising one or more key words; automatically generate custom lyrics that are specifically customized based on the one or more keywords; present a lyric display comprising the automatically generated lyrics; and begin a recording session of a combination of audio and video using the camera and the microphone, wherein the recording session occurs during simultaneous aural playback of the user selected audio composition and stores recorded user audio-video content; and present an edit interface to change a start time of the user audio-video content with respect to a start time of the user selected audio composition, wherein the audio of the user audio-video content may be overlayed with the audio composition. Claim 1: A method for generating and sharing audio/video content to a social network, comprising: initiating a content creation process in response to a request from a user; on a recording user interface, prompting the user to record content; on an audio selection user interface, prompting the user to select an audio composition from a list of compositions retrieved from a host server; on a content creation user interface, presenting the user with a record button; on the content creation user interface, presenting the user with a selection of pre-existing visual media content, wherein upon selecting an instance of pre-existing visual media content from the selection, uses the content creation interface to selectively edit the instance of pre-existing visual media content; providing simultaneous aural playback of the audio composition during a recording session, thereby permitting the user to hear the composition during the recording session; generating composited recorded content based on the recording session by compositing video captured during the recording session with the instance of pre-existing visual media content combined; on the content editing user interface, displaying a preview of the composited recorded content to the user, wherein the preview of the composited recorded content enables the user to change the timing or latency of the composited recorded content relative to the selected audio composition; on a privacy user interface, presenting a privacy attribute selection for the composited recorded content; on a publication user interface, presenting a query to request to publish the composited recorded content; in response to the request to publish, processing and encoding individual components of the composited recorded content to create a streamable video; and publishing the streamable video by copying the streamable video to a media server, from which the streamable video is viewable according to the privacy attribute; and wherein the recording, audio selection, content editing, privacy, and publication user interfaces are different from one another and form part of the same application. . . Claim 1 Claim 1 of the reference patent recites all of the limitations of claim 1 of the instant application except “receive a user input comprising one or more key words; automatically generate custom lyrics that are specifically customized based on the one or more keyword; present a lyric display comprising the automatically generated lyrics” However, Sater discloses receive a user input comprising one or more key words; automatically generate custom lyrics that are specifically customized based on the one or more keyword; present a lyric display comprising the automatically generated lyrics ([0028], [0031], [0037]). Therefore, it would have been an obvious suggestion to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include these features in Pollack. One would have been motivated to do so by facilitating user’ music selection. However, Landy discloses present an edit interface to change a start time of the user audio-video content with respect to a start time of the user selected audio composition, wherein the audio of the user audio-video content may be overlayed with the audio composition ([0038], [0052], [0090]) …(The typical editing system enables the editor to adjust the playback speed of video segments on the video track relative to the speed and start/stop times of audio segments on the audio track in order to render the video and audio in synchronism with each other to produce a pleasing effect on the viewer/listener) ([0002]). Therefore, it would have been an obvious suggestion to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include these features in Pollack. One would have been motivated to do so by facilitating user desire to index sections of the recording based on meaningful elements. Claim 5 of the reference patent recites all of the limitations of claim 5 of the instant application except,” present an edit interface to change a start time of the user audio-video content with respect to a start time of the user selected audio composition, wherein the audio of the user audio-video content may be overlayed with the audio composition” However, Landy discloses present an edit interface to change a start time of the user audio-video content with respect to a start time of the user selected audio composition, wherein the audio of the user audio-video content may be overlayed with the audio composition ([0038], [0052], [0090]) …(The typical editing system enables the editor to adjust the playback speed of video segments on the video track relative to the speed and start/stop times of audio segments on the audio track in order to render the video and audio in synchronism with each other to produce a pleasing effect on the viewer/listener) ([0002]). Therefore, it would have been an obvious suggestion to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include these features in Pollack. One would have been motivated to do so by facilitating user desire to index sections of the recording based on meaningful elements. Claim 1 of the reference patent recites all of the limitations of claim 10 of the instant application except,” present an audio-track interface to receive user input to add a plurality of audio recordings to the user audio-video content” However, Cohen discloses present an audio-track interface to receive user input to add a plurality of audio recordings to the user audio-video content ([0188]-[0189]). It would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate these features in Pollack. One would have been motivated to do so to facilitate artists in the music industry who have limited resources to promote their work to the public to gain traction. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 4. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: (a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made. 5. Claim(s) 1-4, 10-19and 21-22 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being as being unpatentable over Cohen et al. (US 2009/0164034) in view of Sater et al. (US 2008/0091571) and further in view of Landy (US 2009/0273712). Claim 1. Cohen discloses a system for creating audio/video content over a network, comprising: a processing unit ([0055]); a camera ([0040]); a microphone ([0040]); a digital storage device, comprising executable software instructions that program the processing unit to: process a user request to begin content creation; retrieve, over a network, a list of audio compositions from a library of audio compositions ([0164],[0173]); generate a user interface element to present the list of audio compositions to the user (The requesting user may come across a beat to his/her liking while browsing and listening to beats via the service site) ([0173]); process a user selection of an audio composition from the list of audio compositions (..the recording engine 206 can perform simultaneous aural playback of a beat..) ([0074]..(The preview module 216 can be any combination of hardware components and/or software agents able to perform playback of multimedia content such as playback of recorded content and/or simultaneous playback of multiple pieces of multimedia content (e.g., audio, image, video, etc.))[0078])); begin a recording session of a combination of audio and video using the camera and the microphone, wherein the recording session occurs during simultaneous aural playback of the user selected audio composition and stores recorded user audio-video content (A recording session of audio, video, or a combination thereof, can also be initiated via the user interface by clicking a button on the audio player/recorder widget, for example) ([0040], [0038], [0042] [0048]). Cohen does not explicitly disclose receive a user input comprising one or more key words; automatically generate custom lyrics that are specifically customized based on the one or more key words; present a lyric display comprising the automatically generated lyrics; and present an edit interface to change a start time of the recorded user audio-video content with respect to a start time of the user selected audio composition, wherein the audio of the recorded user audio-video content is overlayed with the audio composition However, Sater discloses receive a user input comprising one or more key words; automatically generate custom lyrics that are specifically customized based on the one or more key words; present a lyric display comprising the automatically generated lyrics ([0028]-[0029], [0031], [0037]). Therefore, it would have been an obvious suggestion to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include these features in Cohen. One would have been motivated to do so by facilitating user’ music selection. However, Landy discloses present an edit interface to change a start time of the user audio-video content with respect to a start time of the user selected audio composition, wherein the audio of the user audio-video content is overlayed with the audio composition ([0038], [0052], [0090]) …(The typical editing system enables the editor to adjust the playback speed of video segments on the video track relative to the speed and start/stop times of audio segments on the audio track in order to render the video and audio in synchronism with each other to produce a pleasing effect on the viewer/listener) ([0002]). Therefore, it would have been an obvious suggestion to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include these features in Cohen. One would have been motivated to do so by facilitating user desire to index sections of the recording based on meaningful elements. Claim 2. Cohen Sater and Landry disclose the system of claim 1, Cohen further discloses wherein the digital storage device further comprises executable software instructions configured to transmit the recorded user audio-video content to a server ([0047]). Claim 3. Cohen Sater and Landry disclose the system of claim 1, Cohen further discloses wherein the digital storage device further comprises executable software instructions configured to transmit the user lyric input to a server and receive, from the server, lyrics automatically generated using the user lyric input ([0038], [0046], [0126]). Claim 4. Cohen Sater and Landry disclose the system of claim 1, Cohen further discloses wherein the digital storage device further comprises executable software instructions configured to receive a user rating input and store, based on the user rating input, a user rating associated with the audio composition ([0049]). Claim 14. Cohen Sater and Landry disclose the system of claim 1, Sater further discloses wherein the one or more key words include a keyword that specifies a person's name, wherein the automatically generated lyrics are based on the person's name (genderize the lyrics… user enters information about the subject person) ([0039]-[0041). One would have been motivated to do so by facilitating user’ music selection. Claim 15. Cohen Sater and Landry disclose the system of claim 1, Sater further discloses wherein the one or more key words include a keyword that specifies a noun, wherein the automatically generated lyrics are based on the noun (Joe, Jill) ([0041]). One would have been motivated to do so by facilitating user’ music selection. Claim 16. Cohen Sater and Landry disclose the system of claim 1, Sater further discloses wherein the one or more key words include a keyword that specifies an adverb, wherein the automatically generated lyrics are based on the adverb (item 216, fig. 3). One would have been motivated to do so by facilitating user’ music selection. Claim 17. Cohen Sater and Landry disclose the system of claim 1, Sater further discloses wherein the one or more key words include a keyword that specifies an adjective, wherein the automatically generated lyrics are based on the adjective (item 216, fig. 3). One would have been motivated to do so by facilitating user’ music selection. Claim 18. Cohen Sater and Landry disclose the system of claim 1, Sater further discloses wherein the one or more key words include a keyword that specifies a nickname, wherein the automatically generated lyrics are based on the nickname "brother Joe" and "friend Jim" ([0041]). One would have been motivated to do so by facilitating user’ music selection. Claim 19. Cohen Sater and Landry disclose the system of claim 1, Sater further discloses wherein the one or more key words include one or more predefined categories of key words (items 212,214, fig. 2). One would have been motivated to do so by facilitating user’ music selection. Claim 21. Cohen Sater and Landry disclose the system of claim 1, Sater further discloses wherein to generate custom lyrics, the processing unit is further programmed to: access a template having pre-existing lyrics ([0040]); and add the one or more key words to the pre-existing lyrics ([0040], [0031]). One would have been motivated to do so by facilitating user’ music selection. Claim 22. Cohen Sater and Landry disclose the system of claim 1, Sater further discloses wherein to generate custom lyrics, the processing unit is further programmed to: generate fully customized lyrics based on the one or more key words ([0028]-[0029]). One would have been motivated to do so by facilitating user’ music selection. 6. Claim(s) 10-13 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being as being unpatentable over Cohen et al. (US 2009/0164034) in view of Sater et al. (US 2008/0091571). Claim 10. Cohen discloses a system for creating audio/video content over a network, comprising: a processing unit ([0055]); a digital storage device, comprising executable software instructions that program the processing unit to: process a user request to begin content creation comprising generating a prompt to display to a user for initiating audio content selection ([0164],[0173]); retrieve, over a network, a list of audio compositions from a library of audio compositions ([0164],[0173]); generate a user interface element to present the list of audio compositions to the user (The requesting user may come across a beat to his/her liking while browsing and listening to beats via the service site) ([0173]); process a user selection of an audio composition from the list of audio compositions, comprising initiating audio playback of a preview of the audio composition (..the recording engine 206 can perform simultaneous aural playback of a beat..) ([0074]..(The preview module 216 can be any combination of hardware components and/or software agents able to perform playback of multimedia content such as playback of recorded content and/or simultaneous playback of multiple pieces of multimedia content (e.g., audio, image, video, etc.)([0078]-[0080]); begin a recording session of a combination of audio and video using the camera and the microphone, wherein the recording session occurs during simultaneous aural playback of the user selected audio composition and stores recorded user audio-video content (A recording session of audio, video, or a combination thereof, can also be initiated via the user interface by clicking a button on the audio player/recorder widget, for example) ([0040], [0038], [0042] [0048]); and present an audio-track interface to receive user input to add a plurality of audio recordings to the user audio-video content ([0188]-[0189]). Cohen does not explicitly disclose receive a user input comprising one or more key words; automatically generate fully customized lyrics based on the one or more key words; present a lyric display comprising the automatically generated lyrics; However, Sater discloses receive a user input comprising one or more key words; automatically generate fully customized lyrics based on the one or more key words; present a lyric display comprising the automatically generated lyrics ([0028]-[0029], [0031], [0037]). Therefore, it would have been an obvious suggestion to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include these features in Cohen. One would have been motivated to do so by facilitating user’ music selection. Claim 11. Cohen and Sater disclose the system of claim 10, Cohen further discloses wherein the digital storage device further comprises executable software instructions configured to receive a user rating input and store, based on the user rating input, a user rating associated with the audio composition ([0180]). Claim 12. Cohen and Sater disclose the system of claim 11, Cohen further discloses wherein the digital storage device further comprises executable software instructions configured to encode and store an audio-video composition using the user audio-video content and the audio composition ([0047]-[0049]). Claim 13. Cohen and Sater disclose the system of claim 12, Cohen further discloses wherein the digital storage device further comprises executable software instructions configured to transmit the audio-video composition and the user rating to a server ([0047],[0049], [0180]). 7. Claim(s) 5-9 and 20 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being as being unpatentable over Cohen et al. (US 2009/0164034) in view of Landy (US 2009/0273712). Claim 5. Cohen discloses a system for creating audio/video content over a network, comprising: a processing unit ([0055]); a camera ([0040]); a microphone ([0040]); a digital storage device, comprising executable software instructions that program the processing unit to: process a user request to begin content creation retrieve, over a network, a list of audio compositions from a library of audio compositions ([0164],[0173]); generate a user interface element to present the list of audio compositions to the user(The requesting user may come across a beat to his/her liking while browsing and listening to beats via the service site) ([0173]); process a user selection of an audio composition from the list of audio compositions, comprising initiating audio playback of a preview of the audio composition (..the recording engine 206 can perform simultaneous aural playback of a beat..) ([0074]..(The preview module 216 can be any combination of hardware components and/or software agents able to perform playback of multimedia content such as playback of recorded content and/or simultaneous playback of multiple pieces of multimedia content (e.g., audio, image, video, etc.))[0078])); begin a recording session of a combination of audio and video using the camera and the microphone, wherein the recording session occurs during simultaneous aural playback of the user selected audio composition and records user audio-video content (A recording session of audio, video, or a combination thereof, can also be initiated via the user interface by clicking a button on the audio player/recorder widget, for example) ([0040], [0038], [0042] [0048]). However, Landy discloses present an edit interface to change a start time of the user audio-video content with respect to a start time of the audio composition, wherein the audio of the user audio-video content is overlayed with the audio composition ([0038], [0052], [0090])…(The typical editing system enables the editor to adjust the playback speed of video segments on the video track relative to the speed and start/stop times of audio segments on the audio track in order to render the video and audio in synchronism with each other to produce a pleasing effect on the viewer/listener) ([0002]). Therefore, it would have been an obvious suggestion to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include these features in Cohen. One would have been motivated to do so by facilitating user desire to index sections of the recording based on meaningful elements. Claim 6. Cohen and Landy disclose the system of claim 5, Cohen further discloses wherein the digital storage device further comprises executable software instructions configured to receive a user rating input and store, based on the user rating input, a user rating associated with the audio composition ([0049]). Claim 7. Cohen and Landy disclose the system of claim 5, Cohen further discloses wherein the digital storage device further comprises executable software instructions configured to encode and store an audio-video composition using the user audio-video content and the audio composition ([0047]-[0049]). Claim 8. Cohen and Landy disclose the system of claim 7, Cohen further discloses wherein the digital storage device further comprises executable software instructions configured to transmit the audio-video composition to a server (The host server 100 can store the user multimedia content to be provided to other users, for example, for on-demand audio and/or video playback/recording) ([0062],[0047]). Claim 9. Cohen and Landy disclose the system of claim 5, Cohen further discloses wherein the digital storage device further comprises executable software instructions configured to present a lyric display comprising lyrics automatically generated using a user lyric input during the recording session ([0038], [0046], [0126]). Claim 20. Cohen and Landy disclose the system of claim 5, Cohen further discloses wherein the edit interface further deletes or re-records the audio-video content ([0042]). Response to Arguments 8. Applicant’s arguments and amendments filed on 09/03/2025 have been fully considered but are moot in light of new ground of rejection(s). Applicants argue that Sater fails to teach or suggest the claimed limitation of generating "fully customized lyrics based on ... key words" as claimed. In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees and submits Sater discloses that song lyrics may be automatically generated based on user-provided input such as themes, keywords, or other seed information (see Sater, ¶[0028]-[0029], [0031], [0037]). Such disclosure reasonably corresponds to the claimed feature of “generating fully customized lyrics based on…keywords.” The fact that Sater may not use the exact phrase “fully customized” does not preclude anticipation or obviousness, as the prior art need not employ identical terminology if it nonetheless teaches or suggests the claimed subject matter. See In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“Anticipation does not require the same terminology as the claim, only that all elements be disclosed, expressly or inherently.”). Furthermore, the term “fully customized” is not clearly defined in the specification, as noted in the rejection under 35 U.S.C. §112(b). To the extent Applicant interprets “fully customized” to require a particular type or level of customization, no such definition is provided in the disclosure. Absent a clear definition, the Examiner interprets the term under its broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) consistent with the specification, which encompasses the automatic generation of lyrics based on input keywords as taught by Sater. See MPEP §2111. Accordingly, Sater is considered to teach or at least suggest the disputed limitation, and Applicant’s argument is not persuasive. Conclusion 9. 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. 10. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Hosoi et al. (US 2005/0063668) relate to a data editing and recording device for recording an image data together with an editing history information of the image data when a content data is edited. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Phenuel S. Salomon whose telephone number is (571) 270-1699. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 7:00 A.M. to 4:00 P.M. (Alternate Friday Off) EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Andrew J. Jung can be reached on (571) 270-3779. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-3800. 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. /PHENUEL S SALOMON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2146
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jun 14, 2024
Application Filed
Aug 24, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112, §DP
Nov 06, 2024
Examiner Interview Summary
Nov 06, 2024
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Nov 25, 2024
Response Filed
Dec 27, 2024
Final Rejection — §103, §112, §DP
Feb 18, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Feb 18, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Apr 02, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Apr 04, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
May 31, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112, §DP
Sep 03, 2025
Response Filed
Sep 23, 2025
Final Rejection — §103, §112, §DP (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12602348
DATA ACTOR AND DATA PROCESSING METHOD THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12597486
DISEASE PREDICTION METHOD, APPARATUS, AND COMPUTER PROGRAM
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12586004
METHODS OF PREDICTING RELIABILITY INFORMATION OF STORAGE DEVICES AND METHODS OF OPERATING STORAGE DEVICES
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12572827
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE (AI) MODEL DEPLOYMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12572249
DISPLAY DEVICE, EVALUATION METHOD, AND EVALUATION SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

5-6
Expected OA Rounds
73%
Grant Probability
91%
With Interview (+18.3%)
3y 4m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 715 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month