Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. This action is responsive to Applicant’s application filed 11/24/2025. Claims 1-19 are cancelled. Newly claims 20-30 are added. Claims 20-30 are pending in this office action.
Response to Arguments
3. Applicant’s arguments filed 11/24/2025 have been full considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argued Claims 1-19 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 11,599,709. Claims 1-19 are cancelled herein, thus rendering the rejections moot. Reconsideration is requested.
Applicant argued Claims 2, 14-16 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite. The claims are cancelled herein, thus rendering the rejections moot. Reconsideration is requested.
Applicant argued Claims 1-9 and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kains, et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2014/0337266 Al) in view of Vee, et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2016/0196335 Al). The claims are cancelled herein, thus rendering the rejections moot. Reconsideration is requested.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. The references listed in the IDS filed 09/18/2025 and 11/19/2025 has been considered. A copy of the signed or initialed IDS is hereby attached.
Double Patenting
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 obviousness-type 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
5. Claims 20-30 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 11,599,709. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are substantially similar in scope and they use the same limitations.
The following table shows the claims 1-17 in Instant Application that are rejected by corresponding claim(s) 1-16 in US Patent No. 11,599,709.
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are substantially similar in scope and they use the same limitations.
After analyzing the language of the claims, it is clear that claims 1-19 (or claims 20-30, e.g., one application are one set of claims invention) are merely an obvious variation of claims 1-18 of US Patent No. 11,599,709. It is clear that under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims. Therefore, these two sets of claims are not patentably distinct.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
6. Claims 21-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter, which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The whole set claims 1-19 in Non Final Office are cancelled. The whole set newly claims 20-30 are added.
Claims 20-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The newly added claims 20-30 contains new matter. For example, in claims 20, 26, 28-30, the claimed limitation "a first natural language summary" and “a second natural language summary” or "natural language summary" is not disclosed in the original Specification or Drawing, and Instant claims.
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.
7. Newly claims 20-30 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
All of the claims 20, 26, 28-30, use terms in the claimed limitation "a first natural language summary", “a second natural language summary” or "natural language summary"
without accompanying definition. The term is ambiguous because it could be a new term or one of several acronyms. Appropriate correction is required.
Accordingly, the above claims not been further treated on the merits. Appropriate correction is required.
Newly added claims 20-30:
20. (New) A computer-implemented method for natural language web interaction, comprising:
receiving by a digital processing device a first natural language input from a user, wherein the natural language request comprises a request to retrieve information from a plurality of websites;
parsing the first natural language input into a plurality of segments;
accessing data from the plurality of websites to obtain content responsive to the plurality of segments of the first natural language input;
generating a first natural language summary of at least a portion of one of the plurality of websites;
providing the first natural language summary to the user;
receiving a second natural language input, wherein the second natural language request comprises a request for additional information corresponding to the provided natural language summary;
parsing the second natural language input into a plurality of segments;
accessing data from the plurality of websites to obtain content responsive to the plurality of segments of the second natural language input;
generating a second natural language summary of at least a portion of one of the plurality of websites; and
providing the second natural language summary to the user.
21. (New) The method of claim 20, wherein parsing the first natural language input comprises identifying at least one of a navigation command, a read command, a summarize command, a describe command, a click command, a type command, a find command, and a search command.
22. (New) The method of claim 20, wherein parsing the second natural language input comprises identifying at least one of a navigation command, a read command, a summarize command, a describe command, a click command, a type command, a find command, and a search command.
23. (New) The method of claim 20, further comprising resolving ambiguity in the first natural language input by prompting the user for clarification prior to accessing the plurality of websites.
24. (New) The method of claim 20, wherein the first natural language input and the second natural language input are received through a voice interface.
25. (New) The method of claim 20, wherein the first natural language input and the second natural language input are received through a chat interface.
26. (New) The method of claim 20, wherein the first natural language summary and the second natural language summary are provided through an audio interface.
27. (New) The method of claim 20, wherein the first natural language input and the second natural language input are displayed through a chat interface.
28. (New) The method of claim 20, further comprising resolving ambiguity in the first natural language input by prompting the user for clarification prior to generating the first natural language summary.
29. (New) The method of claim 20, wherein generating the first natural language summary comprises summarizing at least one of text content, images, pictures, videos, and URL destinations from the accessed content.
30. (New) The method of claim 20, wherein generating the second natural language summary comprises summarizing at least one of text content, images, pictures, videos, and URL destinations from the accessed content.
Examiner’s Note
8. Examiner has cited particular columns/paragraph and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
In the case of amending the Claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention. This will assist in expediting compact prosecution. MPEP 714.02 recites: “Applicant should also specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure. See MPEP § 2163.06. An amendment which does not comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.121(b), (c), (d), and (h) may be held not fully responsive. See MPEP § 714.” Amendments not pointing to specific support in the disclosure may be deemed as not complying with provisions of 37 C.F.R. 1.131(b), (c), (d), and (h) and therefore held not fully responsive. Generic statements such as “Applicants believe no new matter has been introduced” may be deemed insufficient.
Conclusion
9. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to James Hwa whose telephone number is 571-270-1285. The examiner can normally be reached on 9:00 am – 5:30 pm EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sherief Badawi can be reached on 571-272-9782. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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 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.
02/23/2026
/SHYUE JIUNN HWA/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2156