DETAILED ACTION
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 .
This action is in response to the preliminary amendment filed on January 2, 2025.
Claims 21-40 are pending in this action. Claims 1-20 have been canceled. Claims 21-40 have been newly added.
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 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 21-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 5-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,386,887. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claimed language of claims 21-40 of the current application merely broadens the claimed subject matter of claims 5-20 of the patent.
Claims 21-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,080282. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claimed language of claims 21-40 of the current application merely broadens the claimed subject matter of claims 1-20 of the patent.
It has been held that the omission of an element and its function is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same function as before In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184 (CCPA). Also note Ex parte Rainu, 168 USPQ 375 (Bd. App. 1969); the omission of a reference element whose function is not needed would be obvious to one skilled in the art.
A claim comparisons in between corresponding independent claims of current application #18/817, 461, Patent 12,080,282, and Patent 11,386,887 as follows:
Application 18/817,461
Patent 12,080,282
Patent 11,386,887
21. (New) A computer-implemented method, comprising: receiving, by a language processing component from a first device, input data corresponding to a natural language input; receiving, from a second device, first context data corresponding to the input data, the first context data comprising a user identifier corresponding to a first possible user of the first device; and performing, by the language processing component based on the first context data and the user identifier, first language processing on the input data to generate output data.
31. (New) A system comprising: at least one processor; and at least one memory comprising instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the system to: receive, by a language processing component from a first device, input data corresponding to a natural language input; receive, from a second device, first context data corresponding to the input data, the first context data comprising a user identifier corresponding to a first possible user of the first device; and perform, by the language processing component based on the first context data and the user identifier, first language processing on the input data to generate output data.
1 .A computer-implemented method, comprising: receiving, by a language processing component from a first device, input data corresponding to a natural language input; receiving, from a second device, first context data corresponding to the input data the first context data representing a device identifier corresponding to the second device; processing the first context data to determine a first identifier corresponding to a first possible user of the first device; and performing, by the language processing component based on to the first identifier, first language processing on the input data to generate output data.
11. A system, comprising: at least one processor; and at least one memory comprising instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the system to: receive, by at least one language processing component corresponding to a first device, input data corresponding to a natural language input; receive, from a second device, first context data corresponding to the input data, the first context data representing a device identifier corresponding to the second device; processing the first context data to determine, a first identifier corresponding to a first possible user of the first device; and perform, by the at least one language processing component based on to the first identifier, first language processing on the input data to generate output data.
5. A computer-implemented method comprising: receiving, from a device, input data corresponding to a natural language input; receiving first context data corresponding to the input data; determining, based on the first context data, a first identifier corresponding to a first possible user of the device; determining, based on the first context data, a second identifier corresponding to a second possible user of the device; performing, based on first language processing data corresponding to the first identifier and second language processing data corresponding to the second identifier, first language processing on the input data to generate first output data; receiving second context data corresponding to the input data; determining, based on the second context data, that the first possible user is more likely to be a user of the device than the second possible user; and performing, based on third language processing data corresponding to the first identifier but excluding fourth language processing data corresponding to the second identifier, second language processing on the first output data to output second output data.
13. A system, comprising: at least one processor; and at least one memory comprising instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the system to: receive, from a device, input data corresponding to a natural language input; receive first context data corresponding to the input data; determine, based on the first context data, a first identifier corresponding to a first possible user of the device; determine, based on the first context data, a second identifier corresponding to a second possible user of the device; perform, based on first language processing data corresponding to the first identifier and second language processing data corresponding to the second identifier, first language processing on the input data to generate first output data; receive second context data corresponding to the input data; determine, based on the second context data, that the first possible user is more likely to be a user of the device than the second possible user; and perform, based on third language processing data corresponding to the first identifier but excluding fourth language processing data corresponding to the second identifier, second language processing on the first output data to output second output data.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Tal et al. (US 2017/0041388) discloses, controlling a device cloud.
Orr et al. (US 10,049,663) discloses, intelligent automated assistant for media exploration.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Abul K. Azad whose telephone number is (571) 272-7599. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Bhavesh Mehta, can be reached at (571) 272-7453.
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Commissioner for Patents
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
Or faxed to: (571) 273-8300.
Hand-delivered responses should be brought to 401 Dulany Street, Alexandria, VA-22314 (Customer Service Window).
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).
March 19, 2026
/ABUL K AZAD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2656