DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
This office action is in response to the application and the Information Disclosure Statement filed on 18 September 2024
This office action is made Non Final.
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1, 5 and 20 are independent claims.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 9/18/24 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 9/18/24 have been accepted and entered.
Specification
The specification, including the abstract, filed on 9/18/24 has been entered and accepted.
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.
Claim 1-20 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 1 recites the limitation “materials on at least the theme and the supporting contents” in the second “compose” limitation. However, the first “compose” limitation of claim 1 already introduced a “materials on at least the theme and the supporting contents”. It is unclear to the Examiner if the element(s)/term(s) “materials on at least the theme and the supporting contents” of the second “compose” limitation should depend on the “materials…” of the first “compose” limitation of claim 1, or viewed as its own element(s). Therefore, the claim is vague and indefinite. For examining purposes, the Examiner will view the second “compose” limitation as “compose to present a second part of the story using at least the second piece of materials, and the materials on at least the theme and the supporting contents.
Claim 2 recite similar limitation(s) with similar issue(s) as in Claim 1 and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “materials on at least the theme and the supporting contents” in the second “compose” limitation. However, the first “compose” limitation of claim 5 already introduced a “materials on at least the theme and the supporting contents”. It is unclear to the Examiner if the element(s)/term(s) “materials on at least the theme and the supporting contents” of the second “compose” limitation should depend on the “materials…” of the first “compose” limitation of claim 5, or viewed as its own element(s). Therefore, the claim is vague and indefinite. For examining purposes, the Examiner will view the second “compose” limitation as “compose a second part of the story to present to the user based on the analyze the first input, the user profile, and the materials on at least the theme and the supporting contents”.
Claim 7 recite similar limitation(s) with similar issue(s) as in Claim 5 and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “the second input including materials in the second part of the story,” in the “analyze” limitation. However, the second “compose” limitation of claim 5 already introduced the second part of the story includes materials. It is unclear to the Examiner if the element(s)/term(s) “materials in the second part of the story” of the analyze limitation of claim 7 should depend on the “materials…” of the second “compose” limitation of claim 5, or viewed as its own element(s). Therefore, the claim is vague and indefinite. For examining purposes, the Examiner will view the “analyze” limitation as “analyze, based on voice recognition, second input in voice from the user received by at least the microphone associated with the mobile device, with the second input including the materials in the second part of the story”.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “materials from a web-based social network accessed at least through the web”. However, the first “compose” limitation of claim 5 already introduced “a first piece of materials accessed by the mobile device via connecting to a web-based social network at least through the web”. It is unclear to the Examiner if the element(s)/term(s) “materials from a web-based social network accessed at least through the web” of the analyze limitation of claim 11 should depend on the “a first piece of materials accessed by the mobile device via connecting to a web-based social network at least through the web …” of claim 5, or viewed as its own element(s). Therefore, the claim is vague and indefinite. For examining purposes, the Examiner will view Claim 11 as “wherein the second part of the story includes second materials from a web-based social network accessed at least through the web.”.
Claim 20 recites the limitation “materials on at least the theme and the supporting contents” in the first, second, and third “compose” limitations. However, the first “compose” limitation of claim 20 already introduced “(a) materials in the computer readable medium on at least a theme of the story and supporting contents supporting the story”. It is unclear to the Examiner if the element(s)/term(s) “materials on at least the theme and the supporting contents” of the first, second, and third “compose” limitations should depend on the “(a)materials…” of the first “compose” limitation of claim 20, or each viewed as its own element(s). Therefore, the claim is vague and indefinite. For examining purposes, the Examiner will view the first, second, and third “compose” limitations as “compose a first part of the story…wherein the first piece of materials includes the materials on at least the theme or the supporting contents,”, “compose a second part of the story to present to the user based on the analyze the first input, the user profile, and the materials on at least the theme and the supporting contents”… “compose a third part of the story to present to the user at least using the first input from the user, and based on the analyze the second input, the user profile, and the materials on at least the theme and the supporting contents”.
Any claim not specifically addressed, above, is being rejected as its failure to overcome the incorporated deficiencies of a claim upon which is depends on.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1
Step 2A, Prong 1
The limitation “compose a story based on a profile of the user, with the story including at least a theme of the story and supporting contents supporting the story” is drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen and paper but for generic computer components but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “…medium” and “mobile device”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step “compose” from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for ““…medium” and “mobile device”, “compose” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually write a story, on paper with a pen, based on information provided to the user.
The limitation “a part of the user profile generated by the mobile device” is drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen and paper but for generic computer components but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for “…medium” and “mobile device”, “generate” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually write a summary about a user on paper.
The limitation “accessing at least an account of the user in the mobile device” is drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen and paper but for generic computer components but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for “…medium” and “mobile device”, “accessing” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually reading data at a high level.
The limitation “generating at least the part of the user profile from at least the accessed materials regarding the user” is drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen and paper but for generic computer components but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for “…medium” and “mobile device”, “generating” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually write a summary about a user on paper.
The limitation “compose to present a first part of the story using at least a first piece of materials, and materials on at least the theme and the supporting contents” is drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen and paper but for generic computer components but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for ““…medium”, “processor”, and “mobile device”, “compose” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually write a story, on paper with a pen, based on information provided to the user.
The limitation “interact with the user at least by presenting the first part of the story to the user” is drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen and paper but for generic computer components but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for ““…medium”, “processor”, and “mobile device”, “interact” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually having a verbal conversation with another user.
The limitation “analyzing…, first input from the user…” is drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen and paper but for generic computer components but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for ““…medium”, “processor”, and “mobile device”, “analyzing” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually reading and reviewing data.
The limitation “compose to present a second part of the story using at least the second piece of materials, and materials on at least the theme and the supporting contents” is drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen and paper but for generic computer components but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for ““…medium”, “processor”, and “mobile device”, “compose” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually write a story, on paper with a pen, based on information provided to the user.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen/pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites these additional elements:
(b) accessing materials regarding the user via a web-based social network at least through the web, based on the account of the user;
with the first piece of materials accessed by the mobile device via connecting to a web-based social network at least through the web
…present a first part of the story using at least a first piece of materials, and materials on at least the theme and the supporting contents
… presenting the first part of the story to the user
analyzing, based on voice recognition, first input from the user received by the mobile device
at least to access a second piece of materials based on the analyzed first input and the user profile
…present a second part of the story using at least the second piece of materials, and materials on at least the theme and the supporting contents.
Each of the “access(ing/ed)” and “received” limitations, listed under Step 2A, prong 2, are mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. In addition, all uses of the recited judicial exceptions require such data gathering and/or transmitting data, as such, these limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. These limitations amount to necessary data gathering. See MPEP 2106.05. The web-based social network, processor, and mobile device in the limitations are claimed at a high level of generality such that the web-based social network, processor, and mobile device is used as tool to perform the generic computer function of gathering or transmitting data. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The “present” (display) limitation is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) (“whether the limitation is significant”) The mobile device and processor in the present limitations are claimed at a high level of generality such that the user device is used as a tool to perform the generic computer function of displaying data. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The limitation(s) “analyzing, based on voice recognition, first input from the user received by the mobile device” provide nothing more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). MPEP
2106.05(f) provides the following considerations for determining whether a claim simply
recites a judicial exception with the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), such as mere
instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer: (1) whether the claim recites
only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a
solution to a problem is accomplished; (2) whether the claim invokes computers or other
machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process; and (3) the particularity or
generality of the application of the judicial exception. The judicial exception of analyzing, based on voice recognition, first input from the user” is performed using “voice recognition” The voice recognition is used to generally apply the abstract idea
without placing any limits on how the first input is analyzed with the voice recognition. Rather, these limitations only recite the outcome of “analyzing, based on voice recognition, first input from the user…” and do not include any details about how the
“analyzing” is accomplished. See MPEP 2106.05(f). In addition, the limitation recites only the idea of analyzing, based on voice recognition, first input from the user without details on how this is accomplished. The claim omits any details as to how the
solves a technical problem, and instead recites only the idea of a solution or outcome. Thus, fails to recite details of how the solution is accomplished. Also, the claim invokes a voice recognition is merely as a tool for making the recited analyze the first input rather than purporting to improve the technology or a computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f).. Therefore, the limitation represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. It can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of computers.
In addition, the claim not does provide meaningful limitations that integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more. This is because the claim is claimed at a broad applicability. For instance, a claim that generically recites an effect of the judicial exception or claims every mode of accomplishing that effect, amounts to a claim that is merely adding the words "apply it" to the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
In addition, the recitation of analyzing, based on voice recognition, first input from the user received by the mobile device” in the limitation also merely indicates a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed. Although the additional elements “analyzing, based on voice recognition, first input from the user received by the mobile device” limits the identified judicial exceptions in the limitation, this type of limitation merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (machine learning/natural language AI) and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO), and the claim is directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A: YES)
In addition, the claim recites these other additional elements – medium, mobile device, processor, web-based social network, web, and voice recognition to perform all the compose(s), access(ing/ed), present, received, generating, interact, and analyzing steps. The medium, mobile device, processor, web-based social network, web, and voice recognition in the steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of all the compose(s), access(ing/ed), generating, present, interact, and analyzing functionality) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic component.
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Each of the “access(ing/ed)” and “received” limitations, listed under Step 2A, prong 2, are recited at a high level of generality. These elements amount to receiving or transmitting data over a network and are well-understood, routine, conventional activity(e.g. buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II. These elements amount to receiving or transmitting data over a network and are well-understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II. The recitation of the web-based social network, processor, and mobile device in the access(ing/ed) and received steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on the web-based social network, processor, and mobile device and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept.
The “present” limitations are recited at a high level of generality. These
elements amount to presenting offers and gathering statistics, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092 20 93). See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II. The use of a user device in these steps, amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
In addition, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using the – web-based social network, processor, and mobile device to perform the compose(s), present, access(ing/ed), received, generating, interact, and analyzing steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 5
Step 2A, Prong 1
The limitation “compose a story based on interacting with the user at least via user inputs instead of just having the user passively receiving information and a profile of the user” is drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen and paper but for generic computer components but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “…medium” “user inputs”, and “mobile device”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step “compose” from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for ““…medium”, “user inputs” and “mobile device”, “compose” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually write a story, on paper with a pen, based on information provided to the user.
The limitation “interact with the user at least via user inputs” is drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen and paper but for generic computer components but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for ““…medium”, “user inputs”, and “mobile device”, “interact” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually having a verbal conversation with another user.
The limitation “compose…a profile of the user” is drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen and paper but for generic computer components but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for “…medium” and “mobile device”, “compose” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually write a summary about a user on paper.
The limitation “compose a first part of the story to present to the user using at least (a) materials in the computer readable medium on at least a theme of the story and supporting contents supporting the story, and (b) a first piece of materials… wherein the first piece of materials includes materials on at least the theme or the supporting contents” is drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen and paper but for generic computer components but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for ““…medium”, “processor”, and “mobile device”, “compose” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually write a story, on paper with a pen, based on information provided to the user.
The limitation “analyze…, first input in voice from the user… with the first input including materials from the first piece of materials” is drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen and paper but for generic computer components but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for ““…medium”, “processor”, and “mobile device”, “analyze” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually reading and reviewing data.
The limitation “with the first input responding to the presented first part of the story” is drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen and paper but for generic computer components but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for ““…medium”, “processor”, and “mobile device”, “responding” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually verbally speak after someone had just finished speaking.
The limitation “compose a second part of the story to present to the user based on the analyze the first input, the user profile, and materials on at least the theme and the supporting contents” is drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen and paper but for generic computer components but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for ““…medium”, “processor”, and “mobile device”, “compose” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually write a story, on paper with a pen, based on information provided to the user.
The limitation “access at least an account of the user in the mobile device” is drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen and paper but for generic computer components but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for “…medium” and “mobile device”, “accessing” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually reading data at a high level.
The limitation “generating at least a part of the user profile from at least the accessed materials regarding the user” is drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen and paper but for generic computer components but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for “…medium” and “mobile device”, “generating” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually write a summary about a user on paper.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen/pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites these additional elements:
… a first part of the story to present to the user using at least (a) materials in the computer readable medium on at least a theme of the story and supporting contents supporting the story
(b) a first piece of materials accessed by the mobile device via connecting to a web-based social network at least through the web
wherein the first part of the story is presented to the user at least in audio by at least a speaker associated with the mobile device
analyze, based on voice recognition, first input in voice from the user received by at least a microphone associated with the mobile device
… a second part of the story to present using at least the second piece of materials, and materials on at least the theme and the supporting contents.
access materials regarding the user via a web-based social network at least through the web, based on the account of the user
Each of the “access(ed)” and “received” limitations, listed under Step 2A, prong 2, are mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. In addition, all uses of the recited judicial exceptions require such data gathering and/or transmitting data, as such, these limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. These limitations amount to necessary data gathering. See MPEP 2106.05. The web-based social network, microphone, processor, and mobile device in the limitations are claimed at a high level of generality such that the web-based social network, processor, microphone, and mobile device is used as tool to perform the generic computer function of gathering or transmitting data. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The “present(ed)” (display or output) limitations are a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) (“whether the limitation is significant”) The mobile device, microphone, speaker and processor in the present limitations are claimed at a high level of generality such that the user device is used as a tool to perform the generic computer function of displaying data. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The limitation(s) “analyze, based on voice recognition, first input in voice from the user received by at least a microphone associated with the mobile device” provide nothing more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). MPEP 2106.05(f) provides the following considerations for determining whether a claim simply recites a judicial exception with the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer: (1) whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished; (2) whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process; and (3) the particularity or generality of the application of the judicial exception. The judicial exception of analyze, based on voice recognition, first input from the user” is performed using “voice recognition” The voice recognition is used to generally apply the abstract idea without placing any limits on how the first input is analyzed with the voice recognition. Rather, these limitations only recite the outcome of “analyze, based on voice recognition, first input in voice from the user…” and do not include any details about how the “analyze” is accomplished. See MPEP 2106.05(f). In addition, the limitation recites only the idea of analyze, based on voice recognition, first input without details on how this is accomplished. The claim omits any details as to how the solves a technical problem, and instead recites only the idea of a solution or outcome. Thus, fails to recite details of how the solution is accomplished. Also, the claim invokes a voice recognition is merely as a tool for making the recited analyze the first input rather than purporting to improve the technology or a computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, the limitation represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. It can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of computers.
In addition, the claim not does provide meaningful limitations that integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more. This is because the claim is claimed at a broad applicability. For instance, a claim that generically recites an effect of the judicial exception or claims every mode of accomplishing that effect, amounts to a claim that is merely adding the words "apply it" to the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
In addition, the recitation of analyze, based on voice recognition, first input in voice from the user received by at least a microphone associated with the mobile device” in the limitation also merely indicates a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed. Although the additional elements “analyze, based on voice recognition, first input in voice from the user received by at least a microphone associated with the mobile device” limits the identified judicial exceptions in the limitation, this type of limitation merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (machine learning/natural language AI) and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO), and the claim is directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A: YES)
In addition, the claim recites these other additional elements – medium, mobile device, processor, web-based social network, microphone, speaker, web, and voice recognition to perform all the compose(s), present(ed), access(ed), generate, interact, and analyze steps. The medium, microphone, speaker, mobile device, processor, web-based social network, web, and voice recognition in the steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of all the compose(s), access(ed), present(ed), generate, interact, and analyze functionality) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic component.
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Each of the “access(ed)” and “received” limitations, listed under Step 2A, prong 2, are recited at a high level of generality. These elements amount to receiving or transmitting data over a network and are well-understood, routine, conventional activity(e.g. buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II. These elements amount to receiving or transmitting data over a network and are well-understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II. The recitation of the web-based social network, microphone, speaker, processor, and mobile device in the access(ed) and received steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on the web-based social network, processor, and mobile device and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept.
The “present” (display or output) limitation(s) are recited at a high level of generality. These elements amount to presenting offers and gathering statistics, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092 20 93). See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II. The use of a user device in these steps, amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
In addition, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using the – web-based social network, microphone, speaker, processor, and mobile device to perform the compose(s), access(ing/ed), generating, interact, and analyze steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 20
Step 2A, Prong 1
The limitation “compose a story based on interacting with the user at least via user inputs instead of just having the user passively receiving information and a profile of the user” is drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen and paper but for generic computer components but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “…medium” “user inputs”, and “mobile device”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step “compose” from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for ““…medium”, “user inputs” and “mobile device”, “compose” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually write a story, on paper with a pen, based on information provided to the user.
The limitation “interact with the user at least via user inputs” is drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen and paper but for generic computer components but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for ““…medium”, “user inputs”, and “mobile device”, “interact” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually having a verbal conversation with another user.
The limitation “compose…a profile of the user” is drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen and paper but for generic computer components but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for “…medium” and “mobile device”, “compose” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually write a summary about a user on paper.
The limitation “compose a first part of the story to present to the user using at least (a) materials in the computer readable medium on at least a theme of the story and supporting contents supporting the story, and (b) a first piece of materials… wherein the first piece of materials includes materials on at least the theme or the supporting contents” is drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen and paper but for generic computer components but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for ““…medium”, “processor”, and “mobile device”, “compose” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually write a story, on paper with a pen, based on information provided to the user.
The limitation “analyze…, first input in voice from the user… with the first input including materials from the first piece of materials in the first part of the story” is drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen and paper but for generic computer components but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for ““…medium”, “processor”, and “mobile device”, “analyze” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually reading and reviewing data.
The limitation “with the first input responding to the presented first part of the story” is drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen and paper but for generic computer components but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for ““…medium”, “processor”, and “mobile device”, “responding” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually verbally speak after someone had just finished speaking.
The limitation “compose a second part of the story to present to the user based on the analyze the first input, the user profile, and materials on at least the theme and the supporting contents” is drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen and paper but for generic computer components but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for ““…medium”, “processor”, and “mobile device”, “compose” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually write a story, on paper with a pen, based on information provided to the user.
The limitation “analyze…, second input in voice from the user… with the second input including materials from the second piece of materials in the second part of the story” is drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen and paper but for generic computer components but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for ““…medium”, “processor”, and “mobile device”, “analyze” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually reading and reviewing data.
The limitation “with the second input responding to the presented first part of the story” is drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen and paper but for generic computer components but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for ““…medium”, “processor”, and “mobile device”, “responding” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually verbally speak after someone had just finished speaking.
The limitation “compose a third part of the story to present to the user at least using the first input from the user, and based on the analyze the second input, the user profile, and materials on at least the theme and the supporting contents” is drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen and paper but for generic computer components but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for ““…medium”, “processor”, and “mobile device”, “compose” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually write a story, on paper with a pen, based on information provided to the user.
The limitation “access at least an account of the user in the mobile device” is drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen and paper but for generic computer components but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for “…medium” and “mobile device”, “accessing” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually reading data at a high level.
The limitation “generating at least a part of the user profile from at least the accessed materials regarding the user” is drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen and paper but for generic computer components but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for “…medium” and “mobile device”, “generating” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually write a summary about a user on paper.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen/pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites these additional elements:
… a first part of the story to present to the user using at least (a) materials in the computer readable medium on at least a theme of the story and supporting contents supporting the story
(b) a first piece of materials accessed by the mobile device via connecting to a web-based social network at least through the web
wherein the first part of the story is presented to the user at least in audio by at least a speaker associated with the mobile device
analyze, based on voice recognition, first input in voice from the user received by at least a microphone associated with the mobile device
…a second part of the story to present to the user based on the analyze the first input, the user profile, and materials on at least the theme and the supporting contents
analyze, based on voice recognition, second input in voice from the user received by at least a microphone associated with the mobile device
… a third part of the story to present to the user at least using the first input from the user, and based on the analyze the second input, the user profile, and materials on at least the theme and the supporting contents
access materials regarding the user via a web-based social network at least through the web, based on the account of the user
Each of the “access(ed)” and “received” limitations, listed under Step 2A, prong 2, are mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. In addition, all uses of the recited judicial exceptions require such data gathering and/or transmitting data, as such, these limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. These limitations amount to necessary data gathering. See MPEP 2106.05. The web-based social network, microphone, processor, and mobile device in the limitations are claimed at a high level of generality such that the web-based social network, processor, microphone, and mobile device is used as tool to perform the generic computer function of gathering or transmitting data. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The “present(ed)” (display or output) limitations are a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) (“whether the limitation is significant”) The mobile device, microphone, speaker and processor in the present limitations are claimed at a high level of generality such that the user device is used as a tool to perform the generic computer function of displaying data. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The limitation(s) “analyze, based on voice recognition, first input in voice from the user received by at least a microphone associated with the mobile device” and “analyze, based on voice recognition, second input in voice from the user received by at least a microphone associated with the mobile device: provide nothing more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). MPEP 2106.05(f) provides the following considerations for determining whether a claim simply recites a judicial exception with the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer: (1) whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished; (2) whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process; and (3) the particularity or generality of the application of the judicial exception. The judicial exception of “analyze, based on voice recognition, first input from the user” and “analyze, based on voice recognition, second input from the user” is performed using “voice recognition” The voice recognition is used to generally apply the abstract idea without placing any limits on how the first or second input is analyzed with the voice recognition. Rather, these limitations only recite the outcome of “analyze, based on voice recognition, first input in voice from the user…” and “analyze, based on voice recognition, second input from the user…” and do not include any details about how the “analyze” is accomplished. See MPEP 2106.05(f). In addition, the limitation recites only the idea of analyze, based on voice recognition, first input or second input without details on how this is accomplished. The claim omits any details as to how the solves a technical problem, and instead recites only the idea of a solution or outcome. Thus, fails to recite details of how the solution is accomplished. Also, the claim invokes a voice recognition is merely as a tool for making the recited analyze the first input or second input rather than purporting to improve the technology or a computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, the limitation represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. It can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of computers.
In addition, the claim not does provide meaningful limitations that integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more. This is because the claim is claimed at a broad applicability. For instance, a claim that generically recites an effect of the judicial exception or claims every mode of accomplishing that effect, amounts to a claim that is merely adding the words "apply it" to the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
In addition, the recitation of “analyze, based on voice recognition, first input in voice from the user received by at least a microphone associated with the mobile device” and ““analyze, based on voice recognition, second input in voice from the user received by at least a microphone associated with the mobile device” in the limitation also merely indicates a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed. Although the additional elements “analyze, based on voice recognition, first input in voice from the user received by at least a microphone associated with the mobile device” and ““analyze, based on voice recognition, second input in voice from the user received by at least a microphone associated with the mobile device” limits the identified judicial exceptions in the limitation, this type of limitation merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (machine learning/natural language AI) and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO), and the claim is directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A: YES)
In addition, the claim recites these other additional elements – medium, mobile device, processor, web-based social network, microphone, speaker, web, and voice recognition to perform all the compose(s), present(ed), access(ed), generate, interact, and analyze steps. The medium, microphone, speaker, mobile device, processor, web-based social network, web, and voice recognition in the steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of all the compose(s), access(ed), present(ed), generate, interact, and analyze functionality) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic component.
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Each of the “access(ed)” and “received” limitations, listed under Step 2A, prong 2, are recited at a high level of generality. These elements amount to receiving or transmitting data over a network and are well-understood, routine, conventional activity(e.g. buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II. These elements amount to receiving or transmitting data over a network and are well-understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II. The recitation of the web-based social network, microphone, speaker, processor, and mobile device in the access(ed) and received steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on the web-based social network, processor, and mobile device and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept.
The “present” (display or output) limitation are recited at a high level of generality. These elements amount to presenting offers and gathering statistics, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092 20 93). See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II. The use of a user device in these steps, amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
In addition, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using the – web-based social network, microphone, speaker, processor, and mobile device to perform the compose(s), access(ing/ed), generating, interact, and analyze steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-4, 6-19
As per dependent claim(s) 2, the limitation “analyzing the first input…” is drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen and paper but for generic computer components but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “…medium”, “analyzing” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually reading and reviewing data.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen/pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Furthermore, the limitation “wherein materials on at least the theme and the supporting contents are in the storage medium” does not appear to add additional elements beyond those described in claim 1. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
As per dependent claim(s) 3, the limitation “analyzing …the second input…” is drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen and paper but for generic computer components but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “…medium”, “analyzing” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually reading and reviewing data.
Furthermore, the limitation “compose a third part of the story…” is drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen and paper but for generic computer components but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for ““…medium”, “processor”, and “mobile device”, “compose” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually write a story, on paper with a pen, based on information provided to the user.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen/pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Furthermore, the limitation(s) of “…second input received…” encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As noted above, receiving and transmitting data has been found by the courts to be well understood, routine, and conventional functionality (See e.g. buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc.). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Furthermore, the limitation(s) of “…presenting the second part…” and “…third part of the story to present to the user” encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As noted above, receiving data has been found by the courts to be well understood, routine, and conventional functionality (See e.g. buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc.). Present(ing) (displaying) information has been found by the courts to be well understood, routine, and conventional functionality (See OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.).Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
The limitation(s) “analyze, based on voice recognition, second input…” provide nothing more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). MPEP 2106.05(f) provides the following considerations for determining whether a claim simply recites a judicial exception with the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer: (1) whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished; (2) whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process; and (3) the particularity or generality of the application of the judicial exception. The judicial exception of analyzing, based on voice recognition, second input from the user” is performed using “voice recognition” The voice recognition is used to generally apply the abstract idea without placing any limits on how the first input is analyzed with the voice recognition. Rather, these limitations only recite the outcome of “analyzing, based on voice recognition, second input…” and do not include any details about how the “analyze” is accomplished. See MPEP 2106.05(f). In addition, the limitation recites only the idea of analyze, based on voice recognition, second input from the user without details on how this is accomplished. The claim omits any details as to how the solves a technical problem, and instead recites only the idea of a solution or outcome. Thus, fails to recite details of how the solution is accomplished. Also, the claim invokes a voice recognition is merely as a tool for making the recited analyze the second input rather than purporting to improve the technology or a computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f).. Therefore, the limitation represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. It can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of computers.
In addition, the claim not does provide meaningful limitations that integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more. This is because the claim is claimed at a broad applicability. For instance, a claim that generically recites an effect of the judicial exception or claims every mode of accomplishing that effect, amounts to a claim that is merely adding the words "apply it" to the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
In addition, the recitation of analyze, based on voice recognition, second input from the user received by the mobile device” in the limitation also merely indicates a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed. Although the additional elements “analyze, based on voice recognition, second input from the user received by the mobile device” limits the identified judicial exceptions in the limitation, this type of limitation merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (machine learning/natural language AI) and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO), and the claim is directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A: YES)
As per dependent claim(s) 4, the limitation “…update the user profile…” is drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen and paper but for generic computer components but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “…medium”, “update” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually adding new information to a written summary of the user.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen/pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
As per dependent claim(s) 6, the limitation “…update the user profile…” is drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen and paper but for generic computer components but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “…medium”, “update” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually adding new information to a written summary of the user.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen/pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
As per dependent claim(s) 7, the limitation “analyzing …the second input…” is drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen and paper but for generic computer components but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “…medium”, “analyzing” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually reading and reviewing data.
Furthermore, the limitation “compose a third part of the story…” is drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen and paper but for generic computer components but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for ““…medium”, “processor”, and “mobile device”, “compose” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually write a story, on paper with a pen, based on information provided to the user.
Furthermore, the limitation “with the second input responding to the presented second part of the story” is drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen and paper but for generic computer components but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for “…medium”, “processor”, and “mobile device”, “responding” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually verbally speak after someone had just finished speaking.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen/pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Furthermore, the limitation(s) of “…second input received…” encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As noted above, receiving and transmitting data has been found by the courts to be well understood, routine, and conventional functionality (See e.g. buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc.). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Furthermore, the limitation(s) of “…third part of the story to present to the user” encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As noted above, receiving data has been found by the courts to be well understood, routine, and conventional functionality (See e.g. buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc.). Present(ing) (displaying) information has been found by the courts to be well understood, routine, and conventional functionality (See OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.).Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
As per dependent claim(s) 8 and 19, the claim(s) do not appear to add additional elements beyond those described in claim 5. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
As per dependent claim(s) 9, the limitation “compose another part of the story…” is drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen and paper but for generic computer components but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for ““…medium”, “processor”, and “mobile device”, “compose” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually write a story, on paper with a pen, based on information provided to the user.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen/pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Furthermore, the limitation(s) of “access a geographic location…” encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As noted above, receiving and transmitting data has been found by the courts to be well understood, routine, and conventional functionality (See e.g. buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc.). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
As per dependent claim(s) 10, the limitation “compose another part of the story…” is drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen and paper but for generic computer components but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for ““…medium”, “processor”, and “mobile device”, “compose” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually write a story, on paper with a pen, based on information provided to the user.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen/pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Furthermore, the limitation(s) of “access a time of day…” encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As noted above, receiving and transmitting data has been found by the courts to be well understood, routine, and conventional functionality (See e.g. buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc.). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
As per dependent claim(s) 11, the limitation(s) of “materials…accessed” encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As noted above, receiving and transmitting data has been found by the courts to be well understood, routine, and conventional functionality (See e.g. buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc.). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
As per dependent claim(s) 12, the limitation “…identify at least a term…” is drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen and paper but for generic computer components but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “…medium”, “identify” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually determine if a certain word is present in written text.
Furthermore, the limitation “…determine a time or position…” is drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen and paper but for generic computer components but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “…medium”, “identify” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually determine where certain text is located within written text.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen/pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The limitation(s) “identify…a term, based on voice recognition …” provide nothing more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). MPEP 2106.05(f) provides the following considerations for determining whether a claim simply recites a judicial exception with the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer: (1) whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished; (2) whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process; and (3) the particularity or generality of the application of the judicial exception. The judicial exception of identify…a term, based on voice recognition from the user” is performed using “voice recognition” The voice recognition is used to generally apply the abstract idea without placing any limits on how a term is identified with the voice recognition. Rather, these limitations only recite the outcome of “identify…a term, based on voice recognition …” and do not include any details about how the “identify” is accomplished. See MPEP 2106.05(f). In addition, the limitation recites only the idea of identify…a term, based on voice recognition without details on how this is accomplished. The claim omits any details as to how the solves a technical problem, and instead recites only the idea of a solution or outcome. Thus, fails to recite details of how the solution is accomplished. Also, the claim invokes a voice recognition is merely as a tool for making the recited identify a term rather than purporting to improve the technology or a computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f).. Therefore, the limitation represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. It can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of computers.
In addition, the claim not does provide meaningful limitations that integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more. This is because the claim is claimed at a broad applicability. For instance, a claim that generically recites an effect of the judicial exception or claims every mode of accomplishing that effect, amounts to a claim that is merely adding the words "apply it" to the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
In addition, the recitation of “identify…a term, based on voice recognition” in the limitation also merely indicates a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed. Although the additional elements “identify…a term, based on voice recognition” limits the identified judicial exceptions in the limitation, this type of limitation merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (machine learning/natural language AI) and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO), and the claim is directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A: YES)
Furthermore, the limitation(s) of “…presenting the second part” encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As noted above, receiving data has been found by the courts to be well understood, routine, and conventional functionality (See e.g. buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc.). Present(ing) (displaying) information has been found by the courts to be well understood, routine, and conventional functionality (See OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.).Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
As per dependent claim(s) 13, the limitation “…determining when to stop…” is drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen and paper but for generic computer components but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “…medium”, “determining” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually pick a time when to no longer show a paper of written text to another person.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen/pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
As per dependent claim(s) 14, the limitation “compose using a plurality of layer…” is drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen and paper but for generic computer components but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for ““…medium, “compose” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually write a story, on paper with a pen, based on information provided to the user.
Furthermore, the limitation “…determining a layer…” is drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen and paper but for generic computer components but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “…medium”, “determining” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually picking information to show to another person.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen/pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Furthermore, the limitation(s) of “…present the second part” encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As noted above, receiving data has been found by the courts to be well understood, routine, and conventional functionality (See e.g. buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc.). Present(ing) (displaying) information has been found by the courts to be well understood, routine, and conventional functionality (See OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.).Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Furthermore, the limitation “the position regarding presenting at least relates to layer” does not appear to add additional elements beyond those described in claim 1. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible
As per dependent claim(s) 15, the limitation “…determining a dimension…” is drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen and paper but for generic computer components but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “…medium”, “determining” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually picking information to show to another person.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen/pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
As per dependent claim(s) 16, the limitation(s) of “…generating…” encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As noted above, receiving data has been found by the courts to be well understood, routine, and conventional functionality (See e.g. buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc.). Generating (displaying) information has been found by the courts to be well understood, routine, and conventional functionality (See OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.).Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
As per dependent claim(s) 17, the limitation “…determining a speed…” is drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen and paper but for generic computer components but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “…medium”, “determining” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually identifying how fast an object is going.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen/pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Furthermore, the limitation “the second part includes a motion” does not appear to add additional elements beyond those described in claim 1. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible
As per dependent claim(s) 18, the limitation “compose the second part…” is drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen and paper but for generic computer components but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for ““…medium, “compose” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually write a story, on paper with a pen, based on information provided to the user.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen/pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Furthermore, the limitation(s) of “…present the first animation and the second animation” encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As noted above, receiving data has been found by the courts to be well understood, routine, and conventional functionality (See e.g. buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc.). Present(ing) (displaying) information has been found by the courts to be well understood, routine, and conventional functionality (See OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.).Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Furthermore, the limitation “the second part includes at least a first animation and a second animation” does not appear to add additional elements beyond those described in claim 1. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
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 1-4 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 62-76 of U.S. Patent No. 12099643.
As per independent claim 1 of the current application, although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are obvious variations of each other being substantially similar in scope and they use the same limitations, using varying terminology such that claims 1 and 10 of the current application are generic to the claim 62 of U.S. Patent No.. Both applications disclose a mobile device of a user, to at least compose a story based on a profile of the user, with the story including at least a theme of the story and supporting contents supporting the story, and with at least a part of the user profile generated by the mobile device at least by (a) accessing at least an account of the user in the mobile device; (b) accessing materials regarding the user via a web-based social network at least through the web, based on the account of the user; and (c) generating at least the part of the user profile from at least the accessed materials regarding the user, wherein the storage medium comprises instructions, when executed by at least a processor of the mobile device, operating to: compose to present a first part of the story using at least a first piece of materials, and materials on at least the theme and the supporting contents, with the first piece of materials accessed by the mobile device via connecting to a web-based social network at least through the web; interact with the user at least by presenting the first part of the story to the user, and then analyzing, based on voice recognition, first input from the user received by the mobile device, at least to access a second piece of materials based on the analyzed first input and the user profile; and compose to present a second part of the story using at least the second piece of materials, and materials on at least the theme and the supporting contents. Therefore, claim 1 of the current application are anticipated by claim 62 of U.S. Patent No. 12099643 since claim 62 of U.S. Patent No. 12099643 contain all the limitations/subject matter of claim 1 of the current application.
Dependent claims 2-4
Claim(s) 66 of 12099643 recite similar limitations as Claim 3 of the current application
Claim(s) 69 of 12099643 recite similar limitations as Claim 4 of the current application
Any claim not specifically addressed, above, is being rejected as its failure to overcome the incorporated deficiencies of a claim upon which is depends on.
Claims 5-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 62-76 of U.S. Patent No. 12099643 in further view of Moon et al (US20120136893).
As per independent claim 5 of the current application, claim 62 of 12099643 and 5 of the current application disclose the subject matter of compose a story based on interacting with the user at least via user inputs instead of just having the user passively receiving information, and a profile of the user, the instructions, when executed by at least a processor of the mobile device, operate to: compose a first part of the story to present to the user using at least (a) materials in the computer readable medium on at least a theme of the story and supporting contents supporting the story, and (b) a first piece of materials accessed by the mobile device via connecting to a web-based social network at least through the web, wherein the first piece of materials includes materials on at least the theme or the supporting contents, and wherein the first part of the story is presented to the user at least in audio by at least a speaker associated with the mobile device; analyze, based on voice recognition, first input in voice from the user received associated with the mobile device, with the first input including materials from the first piece of materials, and with the first input responding to the presented first part of the story; and compose a second part of the story to present to the user based on the analyze the first input, the user profile, and materials on at least the theme and the supporting contents, wherein the instructions, when executed by at least the processor of the mobile device, operate to: access at least an account of the user in the mobile device; access materials regarding the user via a web-based social network at least through the web, based on the account of the user; and generate at least a part of the user profile from at least the accessed materials regarding the user. However, 12099643 does not disclose analyze, based on voice recognition, first input in voice from the user received by at least a microphone associated with the mobile device. However, Moon et al discloses disclose analyze, based on voice recognition, first input in voice from the user received by at least a microphone associated with the mobile device (0033: materials such information of the user is determined based on the analyzing of the voice input by the user)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s invention to have modified the cited art to have modified the cited art with the disclosed feature(s) of Moon et al since it would have provided the intrinsic advantage of maximizing efficiency, enhancing accessibility, improving security, and enabling seamless human-to-machine multitasking.
Dependent claims 6-19
Claim(s) 76 of 12099643 recite similar limitations as Claim 6 of the current application
Claim(s) 66 of 12099643 recite similar limitations as Claim 7, 8 of the current application
Claim(s) 63 of 12099643 recite similar limitations as Claim 9 of the current application
Claim(s) 64 of 12099643 recite similar limitations as Claim 10 of the current application
Claim(s) 65 of 12099643 recite similar limitations as Claim 11 of the current application
Claim(s) 69 of 12099643 recite similar limitations as Claim 12 of the current application
Claim(s) 70 of 12099643 recite similar limitations as Claim 13 of the current application
Claim(s) 71 of 12099643 recite similar limitations as Claim 14 of the current application
Claim(s) 72 of 12099643 recite similar limitations as Claim 15 of the current application
Claim(s) 73 of 12099643 recite similar limitations as Claim 16 of the current application
Claim(s) 74 of 12099643 recite similar limitations as Claim 17 of the current application
Claim(s) 75 of 12099643 recite similar limitations as Claim 18 of the current application
Claim(s) 67 of 12099643 recite similar limitations as Claim 19 of the current application
Claim 20 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 62 of U.S. Patent No. 12099643 in further view of Moon et al (US20120136893).
Independent claim 20
As per independent claim 20 of the current application, the combination of Claims 62 and 66 of 12099643 and claim 20 of the current application disclose the subject matter of compose a story based on interacting with the user at least via user inputs instead of just having the user passively receiving information, and a profile of the user, the instructions, when executed by at least a processor of the mobile device, operate to: compose a first part of the story to present to the user using at least (a) materials in the computer readable medium on at least a theme of the story and supporting contents supporting the story, and (b) a first piece of materials accessed by the mobile device via connecting to a web-based social network at least through the web, wherein the first piece of materials includes materials on at least the theme or the supporting contents, and wherein the first part of the story is presented to the user at least in audio by at least a speaker associated with the mobile device; analyze, based on voice recognition, first input in voice from the user received associated with the mobile device, with the first input including materials in the first part of the story, and with the first input responding to the presented first part of the story; and compose a second part of the story to present to the user based on the analyze the first input, the user profile, and materials on at least the theme and the supporting contents, analyze, based on voice recognition, second input in voice from the user received associated with the mobile device, with the second input including materials in the second part of the story, and with the second input responding to the presented second part of the story; and compose a third part of the story to present to the user at least using the first input from the user, and based on the analyze the second input, the user profile, and materials on at least the theme and the supporting contents, wherein the instructions, when executed by at least the processor of the mobile device, operate to: access at least an account of the user in the mobile device; access materials regarding the user via a web-based social network at least through the web, based on the account of the user; and generate at least a part of the user profile from at least the accessed materials regarding the user.
However, 12099643 does not disclose analyze, based on voice recognition, first input in voice from the user received by at least a microphone associated with the mobile device and analyze, based on voice recognition, second input in voice from the user received by at least a microphone associated with the mobile device. However, Moon et al discloses disclose analyze, based on voice recognition, first input in voice from the user received by at least a microphone associated with the mobile device (0033: user provides a voice input and materials such information of the user is determined based on the analyzing of the voice input by the user) Furthermore, one of a skilled artisan would realize that if the cited art is able to perform this functionality once, then it will perform the functionality again. Thus, the functionality a user providing a voice input and materials such information of the user is determined based on the analyzing of the voice input by the user can be performed again. Thus, another voice input by the user can inputted and additional materials such information of the user can determined based on the analyzing of the another voice input by the user can be performed. Thus, Moon et al discloses disclose analyze, based on voice recognition, second input in voice from the user received by at least a microphone associated with the mobile device.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s invention to have modified the cited art to have modified the cited art with the disclosed feature(s) of Moon et al since it would have provided the intrinsic advantage of maximizing efficiency, enhancing accessibility, improving security, and enabling seamless human-to-machine multitasking.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, and double patenting set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon, listed in the attached PTO-892, is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
If the Applicant chooses to amend the claims in future filings, the Examiner kindly states any new limitation(s) added to the claims must be described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art in order to meet the written description requirement of 35 USC 112, first paragraph. To help expedite prosecution, promote compact prosecution and prevent a possible 112(a)/first paragraph rejection, the Examiner respectfully requests for each new limitation added to the claims in a future filing by the Applicant that the Applicant would cite the location within the specification showing support for that new limitation within the remarks. In addition, MPEP 2163.04(I)(B) states that a prima facie under 112(a)/first paragraph may be established if a claim has been added or amended, the support for the added limitation is not apparent, and applicant has not pointed out where added the limitation is supported.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID FABER whose telephone number is (571)272-2751. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday.
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, Adam Queler can be reached at 5712724140. 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.
/ADAM M QUELER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2172
/D.F/Examiner, Art Unit 2172
Prosecution Insights