DETAILED ACTION
Introduction
1. This office action is in response to Applicant's submission filed on 11/14/2024. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Claims 1-20 are currently pending and examined below.
Drawings
2. The drawings filed on 11/14/2024 have been accepted and considered by the Examiner.
Priority
3. The Applicants priority to U.S. Provisional Patent Application # 62/674,410, filed on May 21, 2018, has been accepted and considered in this office action.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. The Information Statement (IDS) filed on 11/14/2024 has been accepted and considered in this office action and is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97.
Double Patenting
5. The non-statutory 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 time-wise extension of the "right to exclude" granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Omum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed e-terminal disclaimer (e-TD) in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321 (c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a non-statutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign an e-terminal disclaimer. An e-terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 1-20 of the instant Application are rejected on the ground of non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent # 11227626. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the present application are broader in scope than those of U.S. Patent # 11227626 and hence the claims of U.S. Patent # 11227626 can anticipate those of the present invention. That is, the claims of U.S. Patent # 11227626 contain every limitation of the claims of the present application or the claims of the present application are obvious variants thereof. It should be noted that this is in fact a non-provisional non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have in fact been patented.
As an example; claims 1 of the instant application and U.S. Patent # 11227626 both describe a method comprising receiving, using a sensor of a first user device, message data; detecting, at the first user device, a type of message based on the message data; and generating, at the first user device, a message based on the type of message, the message comprising the message data, content data associated with a non-verbal audio interaction, and an indication to perform the non-verbal audio interaction, wherein the content data is configured to be displayed in response to determining, using a neural network that is trained to detect non-verbal sounds, that sound data corresponds to the non-verbal audio interaction. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would have been obvious at the time of the invention to drop narrower limitations in order to have a patent with wider applicability and freedom to operate. In other words, the narrower claim 1 of U.S. Patent # 11227626 anticipates the broader claim 1 of the instant application. Also, removal of the additional steps is obvious: In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184 (1963): "Omission of an element and its function is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same functions as before".
Claims 1-20 of the instant Application are also rejected on the ground of non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent # 12175999. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the present application are broader in scope than those of U.S. Patent # 12175999 and hence the claims of U.S. Patent # 12175999 can anticipate those of the present invention. That is, the claims of U.S. Patent # 12175999 contain every limitation of the claims of the present application or the claims of the present application are obvious variants thereof. It should be noted that this is in fact a non-provisional non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have in fact been patented.
As an example; claims 1 of the instant application and U.S. Patent # 12175999 both describe a method comprising receiving, using a sensor of a first user device, message data; detecting, at the first user device, a type of message based on the message data; and generating, at the first user device, a message based on the type of message, the message comprising the message data, content data associated with a non-verbal audio interaction, and an indication to perform the non-verbal audio interaction, wherein the content data is configured to be displayed in response to determining, using a neural network that is trained to detect non-verbal sounds, that sound data corresponds to the non-verbal audio interaction. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would have been obvious at the time of the invention to drop narrower limitations in order to have a patent with wider applicability and freedom to operate. In other words, the narrower claim 1 of U.S. Patent # 12175999 anticipates the broader claim 1 of the instant application. Also, removal of the additional steps is obvious: In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184 (1963): "Omission of an element and its function is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same functions as before".
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(2) The claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
6. Claims 1, 4, 11 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (2) as being anticipated by Hardee (U.S. Patent Application Publication # 2017/0177298 A1).
With regards to claim 1, Hardee teaches a method comprising receiving, using a sensor of a first user device, message data (Paragraphs 25-26, teach interacting with a processing system using an interactive menu and non-verbal sound inputs comprising receiving a command to initiate the interactive menu. The command to initiate the interactive menu may be a pre-defined or user-defined sequence of non-verbal sounds inputs received from the user. For example, the command to initiate the interactive menu may be five clicks of the teeth of the user. Similarly, the command to initiate the interactive menu may be three finger snaps of the user. Other types of non-verbal sound inputs and/or other numbers of the inputs may be utilized for the command to initiate the interactive menu. Paragraphs 11-20 and figures 1-3, teach various hardware used to implement the process including sensors such as a microphone and also speakers, processors along with memory devices);
detecting, at the first user device, a type of message based on the message data (Para 27, teaches that the method further comprises presenting the interactive menu to a user of the processing system. The interactive menu comprises a plurality of interactive menu portions, which may be presented to the user audibly or visually. Interactive menu options are presented audibly to the user such that the user can hear interactive menu options e.g., “Would you like to send a text message?” or “Click twice to pause the music.” from a speaker of the user's processing system. The interactive menu options are presented visually to the user such that the user can see interactive menu options on a display of the user's processing system);
and generating, at the first user device, a message based on the type of message, the message comprising the message data, content data associated with a non-verbal audio interaction, and an indication to perform the non-verbal audio interaction (Para 28, teaches that the method further comprises performing an action on the processing system based on receiving a non-verbal sound input from the user. The non-verbal sound input may be received from the user responsive to an interactive menu option presented to the user. For example, if the interactive menu asks the user “Would you like to send a text message?” the user's processing system may open a text messaging application on the user's processing system. Examples of actions to be performed by the processing system include at least placing a phone call, sending a text message, initiating an audio recording, opening an application, closing an application, playing/pausing/muting audio or video, and the like, as well as combinations thereof. The actions may be pre-defined and/or user-defined);
wherein the content data is configured to be displayed in response to determining, using a neural network that is trained to detect non-verbal sounds, that sound data corresponds to the non-verbal audio interaction (Para 29, teaches that the method further comprises presenting additional interactive menu options to the user depending upon the user's prior response. That is, certain interactive menu options may prompt follow-up interactive menu options e.g. “Would you like to send a text message?” followed by “Okay, would you like to send the text message to an existing contact?”. The interactive menu options may be yes/no questions, the interactive menu options may provide numbered responses e.g., “Click one time to place a call, click two times to send a text, click three times to start a recording”, and/or the interactive menu options may provide other types of questions/options suitable for answering with non-verbal sound inputs. In the case of yes/no questions, a two-click of the teeth non-verbal sound input may indicate a yes response while a one-click of the teeth non-verbal sound input may indicate a no response. Paragraphs 14-15 and 39-40, teach the use of internal and external networks including instruction set architecture-based networks).
With regards to claims 2-3, please see the rejection of claim 1 above. These claims contain the same steps as outlined in claim 1, with the difference that the process of claim 1 is performed on a second device which receives/plays said message. Hardee teaches that the user can communicate with multiple devices simultaneously (Para 15, teaches a Super I/O chip integrating multiple device adapters into a single integrated circuit). Hence, the process of Hardee can be carried out from a second device.
With regards to claim 4, Hardee teaches the method of claim 1, wherein detecting the type of message based on the message data comprises identifying, using a machine learning scheme, a type of audio message (Para 26, teaches receiving a command to initiate the interactive menu. The command to initiate the interactive menu may be a pre-defined or user-defined sequence of non-verbal sounds inputs received from the user. For example, the command to initiate the interactive menu may be five clicks of the teeth of the user. Similarly, the command to initiate the interactive menu may be three finger snaps of the user. Other types of non-verbal sound inputs and/or other numbers of the inputs may be utilized for the command to initiate the interactive menu);
and in response to identifying the type of audio message, generating the message using a type audio response message corresponding to the type of audio message (Para 29, teaches that the method further comprises presenting additional interactive menu options to the user depending upon the user's prior response. That is, certain interactive menu options may prompt follow-up interactive menu options e.g. “Would you like to send a text message?” followed by “Okay, would you like to send the text message to an existing contact?”. The interactive menu options may be yes/no questions, the interactive menu options may provide numbered responses e.g., “Click one time to place a call, click two times to send a text, click three times to start a recording”, and/or the interactive menu options may provide other types of questions/options suitable for answering with non-verbal sound inputs. In the case of yes/no questions, a two-click of the teeth non-verbal sound input may indicate a yes response while a one-click of the teeth non-verbal sound input may indicate a no response).
With regards to claim 9, Hardee teaches the method of claim 2, wherein the indication prompts a second user of the second user device to perform the non-verbal audio interaction, wherein the non-verbal audio interaction detected by the neural network is at least one of blowing air, snapping fingers, or clapping hands (Para 20, teaches both clapping of hands and snapping of fingers as forms of non-verbal sounds made by the user).
With regards to claims 11-14 and 19, these are system claims for the corresponding method claims 1-4 and 9. These two sets of claims are related as method and apparatus of using the same, with each claimed system element's function corresponding to the claimed method step. Accordingly, claims 11-14 and 19 are similarly rejected under the same rationale as applied above with respect to method claims 1-4 and 9.
Allowable Subject Matter
7. Claims 5-8, 10, 15-18 and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and further if the double patenting rejections are overcome. The prior art of record, alone or in combination, does not currently suggest or teach the invention as outlined in these claims. More detailed reasons for allowance will be outlined as and when the Application proceeds to allowability.
Conclusion
8. The following prior art, made of record but not relied upon, is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Frank (U.S. Patent Application Publication # 2016/0300252 A1), Harif (U.S. Patent # 6820056 B1). These references are also included in the PTO-892 form attached with this office action.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. If you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). In case you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NEERAJ SHARMA whose contact information is given below. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday 8 am to 5 pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Pierre Louis-Desir can be reached on 571-272-7799 (Direct Phone). The fax number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
/NEERAJ SHARMA/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2659
571-270-5487 (Direct Phone)
571-270-6487 (Direct Fax)
neeraj.sharma@uspto.gov (Direct Email)
Prosecution Insights