CTNF 18/912,140 CTNF 83977 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Double Patenting 08-33 AIA 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. Patent (US 12118981 B2) Instant Application (17/475,897) 1. A method implemented by one or more processors, the method comprising: receiving audio data that captures a spoken query of a user that is in a first language, wherein the spoken query is provided via an automated assistant interface of a client device, and wherein the first language is specified as a primary language for the user; generating, based on processing the audio data, a first language response to the spoken query, wherein the first language response is in the first language; generating a second language response, to the spoken query, that is in the second language, wherein the second language is specified as a secondary language of interest to the user; determining, based on verification data provided with or derived from the audio data, to render multilingual content in response to the spoken query, the multilingual content including the first language response and the second language response; in response to determining to render the multilingual content: causing the multilingual content to be rendered at the assistant interface of the client device and in response to the spoken query; determining a query suggestion, wherein determining the query suggestion is based on the spoken query, the first language response, and/or the second language response; in response to determining to render the multilingual content: causing a first language version of the query suggestion and a second language version of the query suggestion to be rendered at the assistant interface of the client device in response to the spoken query; prior to receiving any selection of the first language version of the query suggestion or the second language version of the query suggestion: generating a first response to the query suggestion in the first language; generating a second response to the query suggestion in the second language; and causing the first response and the second response to be cached; receiving a selection of the first language version of the query suggestion; and in response to receiving the selection of first language version of the query suggestion: causing the cached first response to the query suggestion to be audibly rendered; and causing the cached second response to the query suggestion to be audibly rendered subsequent to causing the cached first response to the query suggestion to be audibly rendered. 1. A method implemented by one or more processors, the method comprising: receiving audio data that captures a spoken query of a user that is in a first language, wherein the spoken query is provided via an automated assistant interface of a client device, and wherein the first language is specified as a primary language for the user; generating, based on processing the audio data, a first language response to the spoken query, wherein the first language response is in the first language; generating a second language response, to the spoken query, that is in the second language, wherein the second language is specified as a secondary language of interest to the user; determining to render multilingual content in response to the spoken query, the multilingual content including the first language response and the second language response, determining, for the user, a proficiency measure for the second language; wherein determining to render the multilingual content comprises: determining a complexity measure for the second language response; and determining, based on comparing the complexity measure to the proficiency measure, to render the multilingual content; and in response to determining to render the multilingual content: causing the multilingual content to be rendered at the assistant interface of the client device in response to the spoken query . Instant claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 8-11, 14 and 17 of U.S. Patent No. US 12,118,981 B2 in view of reference Baliga et al US 9,262,405 B1. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the reference Baliga discloses limitations “ determining, for the user, a proficiency measure for the second language (col. 6, ln 41-44) , wherein determining to render the multilingual content comprises: determining a complexity measure for the second language response ( col. 8, ln 48-51) , determining, based on comparing the complexity measure to the proficiency measure, to render the multilingual content ( col. 8, ln 48-51 ) and in response to determining to render the multilingual content: causing the multilingual content to be rendered at the assistant interface of the client device in response to the spoken query (col. 3, ln 15-38; col. 8, ln 48-51). It would have been obvious to use the missing features of the instant application, as taught by Baliga for all the reasons described by the reference such as providing content based on how well a user understands a given language (Baliga, col. 6, In 41-50). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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 the abstract idea of query analysis without significantly more. The claims 1, 8 and 15 recite steps of receiving audio data that captures a spoken query of a user that is in a first language, wherein the spoken query is provided via an automated assistant interface of a client device, and wherein the first language is specified as a primary language for the user (i.e., a data gathering step) ,generating, based on processing the audio data, a first language response to the spoken query, wherein the first language response is in the first language (i.e., a data analysis/evaluation step), generating a second language response, to the spoken query, that is in the second language, wherein the second language is specified as a secondary language of interest to the user (i.e., a data analysis/evaluation step), determining, for the user, a proficiency measure for the second language (i.e., a data analysis/evaluation step), determining to render multilingual content in response to the spoken query, the multilingual content including the first language response and the second language response, wherein determining to render the multilingual content comprises: determining a complexity measure for the second language response (i.e., a data analysis/evaluation step), and determining, based on comparing the complexity measure to the proficiency measure, to render the multilingual content (i.e., a data analysis/evaluation//judgement step), and in response to determining to render the multilingual content: causing the multilingual content to be rendered at the assistant interface of the client device in response to the spoken query (i.e., a post solutional activity), corresponding to steps achievable by a human in mentally/manually gathering data, analyzing the data and providing output as a result of the analysis, and as such, the steps correspond to the mental processes category of abstract ideas. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims are directed to an abstract idea with additional generic computer elements, where the generically recited computer elements (i.e., the claimed processors, system, memory, storage medium) do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claimed steps including steps “determining, based on comparing the complexity measure to the proficiency measure, to render the multilingual content” and “in response to determining to render the multilingual content: causing the multilingual content to be rendered at the assistant interface of the client device in response to the spoken query” correspond to well-understood, routine, conventional computer functions of “gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result” and “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis” as recognized by the court decisions listed in MPEP § 2106.05 and as provided by references Tawfik, Baliga (IDs) and Sharifi (PTO 892 form) The dependent claims also recite mental processes and do not add significantly more than the abstract idea and are as such similarly rejected. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 07-20-aia AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. 07-21-aia AIA 1. Claim s 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 9, 12, 13, 15, 16, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tawfik US 2015/0234920 A1 (“Tawfik” -IDS) in view of Baliga et al US 9,262,405 B1 (“Baliga” - IDS) Per claim 1 , Tawfik discloses a method implemented by one or more processors, the method comprising: receiving audio data that captures a spoken query of a user that is in a first language, wherein the spoken query is provided via an automated assistant interface of a client device, and wherein the first language is specified as a primary language for the user (para. [0032]; a language classifier 107 is provided within the information retrieval system 100 which is able to determine the original language of the query. A region identifier 108 is able to determine the region where the user is located who asked the query…., para. [0038]; para. [0052]; The computing-based device 500 receives a query from an end user computing device 522, processes the query according to the embodiments explained herein and presents the search results to the user…., para. [0053]; The computing-based device 500 also comprises an input/output controller The input/output controller 516 is also arranged to receive and process input from one or more devices, such as a user input device 520 (e.g. a mouse, keyboard, camera, microphone or other sensor) …. the user input device 520 may detect voice input, para. [0055]-[0057]); generating, based on processing the audio data, a first language response to the spoken query, wherein the first language response is in the first language (fig. 4; receiving search results for the original language-region pair includes issuing the query to a ranker for the original language-region pair. The result corresponds to the search result pages that are normally obtained by a search engine …, para. [0026]; para. [0036]); generating a second language response, to the spoken query, that is in the second language, wherein the second language is specified as a secondary language of interest to the user (fig. 4; At the top of the page is the field where the user enters his query 400 in English. Below, the search results are shown in the form of snippets in the order of their relevance for the query. The top three search results refer to English search results, while the fourth and fifth search results refer to Spanish web pages…., para. [0051]); determining to render multilingual content in response to the spoken query, the multilingual content including the first language response and the second language response (col. 3, ln 33-38; As described above, the data processing system 110 can receive content from supplemental content provider 115. When computing device 120 requests content from content publisher 125, the content from supplemental content provider 115 can be provided along with the requested content…., col. 7, ln 56-60; col. 14, ln 33-49), Tawfik does not explicitly disclose determining, for the user, a proficiency measure for the second language, wherein determining to render the multilingual content comprises: determining a complexity measure for the second language response, determining, based on comparing the complexity measure to the proficiency measure, to render the multilingual content or in response to determining to render the multilingual content: causing the multilingual content to be rendered at the assistant interface of the client device in response to the spoken query However, these features are taught by Baliga : determining, for the user, a proficiency measure for the second language (For example, the user profile module can assign a relatively high value to the proficiency for a given language in response to computing device 120 requesting a large number of electronic documents written in that language.…, col. 6, ln 41-44); wherein determining to render the multilingual content comprises: determining a complexity measure for the second language response (col. 7, ln 56-60; the data processing system 110 can serve to the computing device 120 a supplemental content item whose language is below a threshold level of complexity based on the user's proficiency. …, col. 8, ln 48-51); and determining, based on comparing the complexity measure to the proficiency measure, to render the multilingual content (the content from supplemental content provider 115 can be provided along with the requested content…., col. 7, ln 56-60; the data processing system 110 can serve to the computing device 120 a supplemental content item whose language is below a threshold level of complexity based on the user's proficiency. …, col. 8, ln 48-51); and in response to determining to render the multilingual content: causing the multilingual content to be rendered at the assistant interface of the client device in response to the spoken query (col. 3, ln 15-38; col. 8, ln 48-51) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Baliga with the method of Tawfik in arriving at the missing features of Tawfik, because such combination would have resulted in providing content based on how well a user understands a given language (Baliga, col. 6, In 41-50). Per claim 2 , Tawfik in view of Baliga discloses the method of claim 1, Baliga discloses wherein determining the proficiency measure for the second language is based on one or more historical interactions between the user and one or more applications available via the client device (The user profile module 135 can also adjust the proficiency level associated with a language based on the language complexity in electronic documents displayed on computing device 120 …, col. 6, ln 62-65; In some implementations, the user profile module 135 can receive network activity from the computing device 120 over a predetermined period of time. For example, the browser history data received by user profile module 135 may indicate those web pages displayed on computing device 120 within the past half hour, day, week, month, year, etc. If network activity from computing device 120 has been stored in database 140, the user profile module 135 may retrieve only data that was collected during a predetermined period of time to make determinations about the language skills and preferences of a user of computing device 120…, col. 7, ln 43-55). Per claim 5 , Tawfik in view of Baliga discloses the method of claim 1, Baliga wherein determining to render the multilingual content is further based on determining that the user proficiency measure for the second language satisfies a threshold (If the geographic parameter indicates that the computing device is located in Italy, but the proficiency parameter associated with Italian indicates that the user has a low level of comprehension of Italian language, the data processing system can select a supplemental content item in a language in which the user has a higher proficiency level. …, col. 10, ln 48-63, high proficiency as implying proficiency satisfying low threshold ). Per claim 6 , Tawfik in view of Baliga discloses the method of claim 1, Tawfik discloses generating an additional second language response, to the spoken query, that is in the second language (fig. 4; para. [0051]); and Baliga discloses generating an additional complexity measure, wherein the additional complexity measure is for the additional second language response, and wherein determining to render the multilingual content is further based on comparing the complexity measure for the second language response to the additional complexity measure for the additional second language response (The data processing system 110 can receive multiple content items from the supplemental content provider 115…., col. 4, ln 26-27; col. 7, ln 56-60; the data processing system 110 can serve to the computing device 120 a supplemental content item whose language is below a threshold level of complexity based on the user's proficiency. …, col. 8, ln 48-51). Per claim 8 , Tawfik discloses a system comprising: memory storing instructions (para. [0054]); and one or more processors operable to execute the instructions (para. [0054]) to: receive audio data that captures a spoken query of a user that is in a first language, wherein the spoken query is provided via an automated assistant interface of a client device, and wherein the first language is specified as a primary language for the user (para. [0032]; a language classifier 107 is provided within the information retrieval system 100 which is able to determine the original language of the query. A region identifier 108 is able to determine the region where the user is located who asked the query…., para. [0038]; para. [0052]; The computing-based device 500 receives a query from an end user computing device 522, processes the query according to the embodiments explained herein and presents the search results to the user…., para. [0053]; The computing-based device 500 also comprises an input/output controller The input/output controller 516 is also arranged to receive and process input from one or more devices, such as a user input device 520 (e.g. a mouse, keyboard, camera, microphone or other sensor) …. the user input device 520 may detect voice input, para. [0055]-[0057]); generate, based on processing the audio data, a first language response to the spoken query, wherein the first language response is in the first language (fig. 4; receiving search results for the original language-region pair includes issuing the query to a ranker for the original language-region pair. The result corresponds to the search result pages that are normally obtained by a search engine …, para. [0026]; para. [0036]); generate a second language response, to the spoken query, that is in the second language, wherein the second language is specified as a secondary language of interest to the user (fig. 4; At the top of the page is the field where the user enters his query 400 in English. Below, the search results are shown in the form of snippets in the order of their relevance for the query. The top three search results refer to English search results, while the fourth and fifth search results refer to Spanish web pages…., para. [0051]); determine to render multilingual content in response to the spoken query, the multilingual content including the first language response and the second language response (col. 3, ln 33-38; As described above, the data processing system 110 can receive content from supplemental content provider 115. When computing device 120 requests content from content publisher 125, the content from supplemental content provider 115 can be provided along with the requested content…., col. 7, ln 56-60; col. 14, ln 33-49), Tawfik does not explicitly disclose determine, for the user, a proficiency measure for the second language, wherein in determining to render the multilingual content, one or more of the processors are to: determine a complexity measure for the second language response, determine, based on comparing the complexity measure to the proficiency measure, to render the multilingual content or in response to determining to render the multilingual content: cause the multilingual content to be rendered at the assistant interface of the client device in response to the spoken query However, these features art taught by Baliga : determine, for the user, a proficiency measure for the second language (For example, the user profile module can assign a relatively high value to the proficiency for a given language in response to computing device 120 requesting a large number of electronic documents written in that language.…, col. 6, ln 41-44); wherein in determining to render the multilingual content, one or more of the processors are to: determine a complexity measure for the second language response (col. 7, ln 56-60; the data processing system 110 can serve to the computing device 120 a supplemental content item whose language is below a threshold level of complexity based on the user's proficiency. …, col. 8, ln 48-51); and determine, based on comparing the complexity measure to the proficiency measure, to render the multilingual content (the content from supplemental content provider 115 can be provided along with the requested content…., col. 7, ln 56-60; the data processing system 110 can serve to the computing device 120 a supplemental content item whose language is below a threshold level of complexity based on the user's proficiency. …, col. 8, ln 48-51); and in response to determining to render the multilingual content: cause the multilingual content to be rendered at the assistant interface of the client device in response to the spoken query (col. 3, ln 15-38; col. 8, ln 48-51) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Baliga with the system of Tawfik in arriving at the missing features of Tawfik, because such combination would have resulted in providing content based on how well a user understands a given language (Baliga, col. 6, In 41-50). Per claim 9 , Tawfik in view of Baliga discloses the system of claim 8, System claim 9 and method claim 2 are related as system and the method of using same, with each claimed element's function corresponding to the claimed method step. Accordingly claim 9 is similarly rejected under the same rationale as applied above with respect to claim 2 . Per claim 12 , Tawfik in view of Baliga discloses the system of claim 8, System claim 12 and method claim 5 are related as system and the method of using same, with each claimed element's function corresponding to the claimed method step. Accordingly claim 12 is similarly rejected under the same rationale as applied above with respect to claim 5 . Per claim 13 , Tawfik in view of Baliga discloses the system of claim 8, System claim 13 and method claim 6 are related as system and the method of using same, with each claimed element's function corresponding to the claimed method step. Accordingly claim 13 is similarly rejected under the same rationale as applied above with respect to claim 6 . Per claim 15 , Tawfik discloses a non-transitory computer readable storage medium configured to store instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause one or more of the processors to: receive audio data that captures a spoken query of a user that is in a first language, wherein the spoken query is provided via an automated assistant interface of a client device, and wherein the first language is specified as a primary language for the user (para. [0032]; a language classifier 107 is provided within the information retrieval system 100 which is able to determine the original language of the query. A region identifier 108 is able to determine the region where the user is located who asked the query…., para. [0038]; para. [0052]; The computing-based device 500 receives a query from an end user computing device 522, processes the query according to the embodiments explained herein and presents the search results to the user…., para. [0053]; The computing-based device 500 also comprises an input/output controller The input/output controller 516 is also arranged to receive and process input from one or more devices, such as a user input device 520 (e.g. a mouse, keyboard, camera, microphone or other sensor) …. the user input device 520 may detect voice input, para. [0055]-[0057]); generate, based on processing the audio data, a first language response to the spoken query, wherein the first language response is in the first language (fig. 4; receiving search results for the original language-region pair includes issuing the query to a ranker for the original language-region pair. The result corresponds to the search result pages that are normally obtained by a search engine …, para. [0026]; para. [0036]); generate a second language response, to the spoken query, that is in the second language, wherein the second language is specified as a secondary language of interest to the user (fig. 4; At the top of the page is the field where the user enters his query 400 in English. Below, the search results are shown in the form of snippets in the order of their relevance for the query. The top three search results refer to English search results, while the fourth and fifth search results refer to Spanish web pages…., para. [0051]); determine to render multilingual content in response to the spoken query, the multilingual content including the first language response and the second language response (col. 3, ln 33-38; As described above, the data processing system 110 can receive content from supplemental content provider 115. When computing device 120 requests content from content publisher 125, the content from supplemental content provider 115 can be provided along with the requested content…., col. 7, ln 56-60; col. 14, ln 33-49) Tawfik does not explicitly disclose determine, for the user, a proficiency measure for the second language, wherein in determining to render the multilingual content, one or more of the processors are to: determine a complexity measure for the second language response, determine, based on comparing the complexity measure to the proficiency measure, to render the multilingual content or in response to determining to render the multilingual content: cause the multilingual content to be rendered at the assistant interface of the client device in response to the spoken query However, these features are taught by Baliga : determine, for the user, a proficiency measure for the second language (For example, the user profile module can assign a relatively high value to the proficiency for a given language in response to computing device 120 requesting a large number of electronic documents written in that language.…, col. 6, ln 41-44); wherein in determining to render the multilingual content, one or more of the processors are to: determine a complexity measure for the second language response (col. 7, ln 56-60; the data processing system 110 can serve to the computing device 120 a supplemental content item whose language is below a threshold level of complexity based on the user's proficiency.…, col. 8, ln 48-51); and determine, based on comparing the complexity measure to the proficiency measure, to render the multilingual content (the content from supplemental content provider 115 can be provided along with the requested content…., col. 7, ln 56-60; the data processing system 110 can serve to the computing device 120 a supplemental content item whose language is below a threshold level of complexity based on the user's proficiency. …, col. 8, ln 48-51); and in response to determining to render the multilingual content: cause the multilingual content to be rendered at the assistant interface of the client device in response to the spoken query (col. 3, ln 15-38; col. 8, ln 48-51) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Baliga with the medium of Tawfik in arriving at the missing features of Tawfik, because such combination would have resulted in providing content based on how well a user understands a given language (Baliga, col. 6, In 41-50). Per claim 16 , Tawfik in view of Baliga discloses the non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 15, Medium claim 16 and method claim 2 are related as medium and the method of using same, with each claimed element's function corresponding to the claimed method step. Accordingly claim 16 is similarly rejected under the same rationale as applied above with respect to claim 2 . Per claim 19 , Tawfik in view of Baliga discloses the non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 15, Medium claim 19 and method claim 5 are related as medium and the method of using same, with each claimed element's function corresponding to the claimed method step. Accordingly claim 19 is similarly rejected under the same rationale as applied above with respect to claim 5 . Per claim 20 , Tawfik in view of Baliga discloses the non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 15, Medium claim 20 and method claim 6 are related as medium and the method of using same, with each claimed element's function corresponding to the claimed method step. Accordingly claim 20 is similarly rejected under the same rationale as applied above with respect to claim 6 . 07-22-aia AIA 2. Claim s 3, 4, 7, 10, 11, 14, 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tawfik in view of Baliga as applied to claim s 1, 8 and 15 above, and further in view of Sharifi US 2017/0221472 A1 (“Sharifi”) Per claim 3 , Tawfik in view of Baliga discloses the method of claim 1, Tawfik in view of Baliga does not explicitly disclose wherein determining the proficiency measure for the second language is based on one or more previous spoken queries submitted by the user in the second language However, this feature is taught by Sharifi (determining the language proficiency of the user includes inferring a language proficiency of the user based at least on previous queries submitted by the use, para. [0011]; para. [0032]; para. [0052]) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Sharifi with the method of Tawfik in view of Baliga in arriving at the missing features of Tawfik in view of Baliga, because such combination would have resulted in providing results/output that are commensurate with the user’s language proficiencies (Sharifi, para. [0005]) Per claim 4 , Tawfik in view of Baliga discloses the method of claim 1, Tawfik in view of Baliga does not explicitly disclose wherein determining the proficiency measure for the second language comprises: processing one or more instances of text submitted by the user in the second language or determining the proficiency measure for the second language based on one or more of the instances of text submitted by the user in the second language However, these features are taught by Sharifi : wherein determining the proficiency measure for the second language comprises: processing one or more instances of text submitted by the user in the second language (para. [0011]) and determining the proficiency measure for the second language based on one or more of the instances of text submitted by the user in the second language para. [0011]; para. [0032]; para. [0052]) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Sharifi with the method of Tawfik in view of Baliga in arriving at the missing features of Tawfik in view of Baliga, because such combination would have resulted in providing results/output that are commensurate with the user’s language proficiencies (Sharifi, para. [0005]) Per claim 7 , Tawfik in view of Baliga discloses the method of claim 1, Tawfik in view of Baliga does not explicitly disclose wherein the complexity measure for the second language response is based on one or more of a number of terms in the second language response, the complexity of one or more of the number of terms in the second language response, or one or more grammatical rules required to understand the second language response. However, this feature is taught by Sharifi (fig. 1; para. [0089]) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Sharifi with the method of Tawfik in view of Baliga in arriving at the missing features of Tawfik in view of Baliga, because such combination would have resulted in providing results/output that are commensurate with the user’s language proficiencies (Sharifi, para. [0005]) Per claim 10 , Tawfik in view of Baliga discloses the system of claim 8, System claim 10 and method claim 3 are related as system and the method of using same, with each claimed element's function corresponding to the claimed method step. Accordingly claim 10 is similarly rejected under the same rationale as applied above with respect to claim 3 . Per claim 11 , Tawfik in view of Baliga discloses the system of claim 8, System claim 11 and method claim 4 are related as system and the method of using same, with each claimed element's function corresponding to the claimed method step. Accordingly claim 11 is similarly rejected under the same rationale as applied above with respect to claim 4 . Per claim 14 , Tawfik in view of Baliga discloses the system of claim 8, System claim 14 and method claim 7 are related as system and the method of using same, with each claimed element's function corresponding to the claimed method step. Accordingly claim 14 is similarly rejected under the same rationale as applied above with respect to claim 7 . Per claim 17 , Tawfik in view of Baliga discloses the non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 15, Medium claim 17 and method claim 3 are related as medium and the method of using same, with each claimed element's function corresponding to the claimed method step. Accordingly claim 17 is similarly rejected under the same rationale as applied above with respect to claim 3 . Per claim 18 , Tawfik in view of Baliga discloses the non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 15, Medium claim 18 and method claim 4 are related as medium and the method of using same, with each claimed element's function corresponding to the claimed method step. Accordingly claim 18 is similarly rejected under the same rationale as applied above with respect to claim 4 . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO 892 form Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLUJIMI A ADESANYA whose telephone number is (571)270-3307. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30-5:00pm. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Richemond Dorvil can be reached at 571-272-7602. 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. /OLUJIMI A ADESANYA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2658 Application/Control Number: 18/912,140 Page 2 Art Unit: 2658 Application/Control Number: 18/912,140 Page 3 Art Unit: 2658 Application/Control Number: 18/912,140 Page 4 Art Unit: 2658 Application/Control Number: 18/912,140 Page 5 Art Unit: 2658 Application/Control Number: 18/912,140 Page 6 Art Unit: 2658 Application/Control Number: 18/912,140 Page 7 Art Unit: 2658 Application/Control Number: 18/912,140 Page 8 Art Unit: 2658 Application/Control Number: 18/912,140 Page 9 Art Unit: 2658 Application/Control Number: 18/912,140 Page 10 Art Unit: 2658 Application/Control Number: 18/912,140 Page 11 Art Unit: 2658 Application/Control Number: 18/912,140 Page 12 Art Unit: 2658 Application/Control Number: 18/912,140 Page 13 Art Unit: 2658 Application/Control Number: 18/912,140 Page 14 Art Unit: 2658 Application/Control Number: 18/912,140 Page 15 Art Unit: 2658 Application/Control Number: 18/912,140 Page 16 Art Unit: 2658 Application/Control Number: 18/912,140 Page 17 Art Unit: 2658 Application/Control Number: 18/912,140 Page 18 Art Unit: 2658 Application/Control Number: 18/912,140 Page 19 Art Unit: 2658 Application/Control Number: 18/912,140 Page 20 Art Unit: 2658 Application/Control Number: 18/912,140 Page 21 Art Unit: 2658 Application/Control Number: 18/912,140 Page 22 Art Unit: 2658 Application/Control Number: 18/912,140 Page 23 Art Unit: 2658 Application/Control Number: 18/912,140 Page 24 Art Unit: 2658 Application/Control Number: 18/912,140 Page 25 Art Unit: 2658 Application/Control Number: 18/912,140 Page 26 Art Unit: 2658 Application/Control Number: 18/912,140 Page 27 Art Unit: 2658
Prosecution Insights