DETAILED ACTION
Claims 21-40 are pending in the present application. Claims 21, 32, and 40 were amended in the response filed 30 December 2025; claims 1-20 have status cancelled. .
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 21-40 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.
Regarding claim 21, the following limitation is vague, “in a record of keywords” [see claim 21 lines 8-9]. The disclosure appears to state storing keywords in a database or memory unit. Note support for this feature can be found at paragraphs 0074-0075.
The limitations of claims 32 and 40 parallel claim 1; therefore they are rejected under the same rationale. Claims 2-31 and 33-39 are rejected based on dependency.:
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.
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) 21, 32, and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goel et al. US Patent 8,775,514 B2 in view of Nowak et al. US Patent 10,079,937 B2 and Ripa et al. US Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0140497 A1.
Regarding claim 21, Goel et al. teaches the following:
A computing system for providing assistance to a service representative interacting with a customer, the computing system comprising one or more processors and a memory in communication with the one or more processors, the memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, [note: Figure 1 (101) customer service platform ] cause the one or more processors to:
analyze a conversation between the service representative and the customer to identify one or more keywords generated during the conversation [note: column 2 lines 23-57; Figure 1 (115) speech-to-text module; column 4 lines31-64 telephony capabilities; column 4 lines47-64, “may capture voice and/or text correspondence so that the converted correspondences may be presented”; column 8 lines 23-25 text messages ];
store the one or more identified keywords in a record of keywords, the record including previously identified keywords associated with previously generated virtual content;
generate virtual content for the service representative based upon the identified one or more keywords; and cause a screen associated with the service representative to display the virtual content [note Figure 7 (700) GUI interface screen; column 11 line 43 through column 12 line 16 ].
Although Goel et al. teach the invention as cited; they do not explicitly teach identifying keywords generated during the conversation. However, Nowak et al. teach the feature as follows [note: column 15 lines 66-67, “extract one or more keywords from the at least one monitored conversation”; column 16 lines38-41 and lines 52-54 determines correlation between keywords, and means for prompts and chats]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of the effective filing date to have combined the cited references since both are directed toward enhanced customer interactive experience and extracting keywords is a well-known technique when analyzing conversations and/or voice recognition technique.
Although Goel et al. and Nowak et al. teach the invention as cited above, they do not explicitly disclose storing keywords in a record of keywords. However, Ripa et al. teaches real-time call center wherein words and phrases (keywords) are stored in in memory (database) and compared to a list of keywords to optimize results of relevant information [note: page 20 claims 8 through 9]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of the effective filing date to have combined the cited reference since it is also directed toward optimized retrieval of relevant information and gives detail on keyword analysis.
The limitations of claims 2 and 40 parallel claim 21; therefore they are rejected under the same rationale.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 23-24 and 33-39 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 21-40 have been considered but are moot in view of the current rejection.
ARGUMENT: Claims 21, 32, and 40 have been amended to overcome rejection obviousness-type double patenting.
RESPONSE: The rejection has been withdrawn in view of the amendment.
ARGUMENT: Claims were rejected under 35 USC 112; the claims have been amended to overcome the rejection.
RESPONSE: The amendment overcomes the rejection.
ARGUMENT: Claims 21, 32, and 40 have been amended to overcome rejection cited under 35 USC 103.
RESPONSE: Note newly cited reference Ripa et al. appears to teach the amended feature.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Note attached form PTO-892.
Applicant's submission of an information disclosure statement under 37 CFR 1.97(c) with the timing fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(p) on 28 August 2025 prompted the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 609.04(b). 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 GRETA ROBINSON whose telephone number is (571)272-4118. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 9:30AM-6:00PM.
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, Hassan Mahmoudi can be reached at 571-272-4078. 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.
/GRETA L ROBINSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2163