DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
In response to applicant’s amendment filed 12/5/2025, claims 1-20 are pending in this application.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Knerr et al. (US 2023/0023691) in view of Julia et al. (US 8,272,874) and also Park et al. (US 2025/0299597).
Regarding claims 1, 7, and 15, Knerr discloses a system that selects a speech exercise type and provides an indication to a user on a client device to start the exercise and receives speech content from the client device. See paragraphs 0017-0018 and 0020. Knerr discloses wherein the system determines feedback based thereon, and provides feedback to the user. See paragraph 0024.
Knerr does not explicitly disclose qualitative feedback. However, this manner of feedback is established with regard to language training systems, such as Julia, as described in col. 5: 21-24
Knerr discloses wherein the feedback is quantitative in nature, and does not disclose explicitly feedback generated by a content generator. However, such feedback configurations are established with regard to education systems, as is disclosed by the training system of Park in paragraph 0056. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s filing, to consider this with the Knerr system, in order to provide various feedback to the user.
Regarding claims 2, 8, and 16, Knerr discloses wherein the system generates a feedback prompt with the first content and provides it to a content generator, and receives the feedback. See paragraphs 0023 - 0024.
Regarding claims 3, 9, and 17, Knerr discloses a transcript and an audio signal of the user’s speech. See paragraph 0024.
Regarding claims 4, 10, Knerr discloses a quality recommendation for various qualitative aspect. See paragraphs 0024 and 0027-0028.
Regarding claims 5, 11, Knerr discloses highlighting the sections of the transcript regarding the qualitative feedback. See paragraph 0030.
Regarding claims 6, 14, Knerr discloses wherein the feedback can be transmitted to several client devices. See paragraphs 0015 and 0031.
Regarding claims 12-13, and 18-20, Knerr discloses wherein the speech types are of various categories, content, and topics, as would be the feedback based thereon. See paragraph 0017.
Arguments/Remarks
Applicant’s arguments and remarks dated 12/5/2025 have been fully considered, but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY A MUSSELMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-1814. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 8:00AM - 4:00PM.
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, PETER S VASAT can be reached on 571-570-7625. 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.
/TIMOTHY A MUSSELMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights