Detailed Action
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informality: The phrase “any of claim 8” should be replaced by --claim 8-- to overcome an apparent typographical error. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. See Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014).
The claim(s) recite(s), inter alia,
receiving at least one user input
encoding the user input as a sequence of indexes
augmenting and alternating the sequence of indexes into a plurality of communication symbols
generating optimal communication symbols for an optimized symbols selection
selecting the optimal communication symbols based on relevance to user input
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, claim 1 covers performance of limitations in the mind. A human—using their mind, pen, and paper—is capable of receiving a user input, using it to encode a series of indices, using the indices to optimize a set of communication symbols based on relevance to the input.
The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. Representative claims 1 and 14 recite the additional elements of a “processor” and “accessing a database that stores a plurality of data, capturing user interactions and evaluation data through a feedback mechanism to the database for adaptive learning and displaying the optimized symbols for the sentence writing on a display interface of the AAC device.” Specifically, these additional elements, when considered individually or in combination, are not integrated into a practical application because:
Processor – is described in the specification with a high degree of generality. Specific features are not claimed. Therefore, it would be reasonable to interpret it as a routine and conventional computing component.
Accessing a database that stores a plurality of data, capturing user interactions and evaluation data through a feedback mechanism to the database – is regarded as insignificant extra solution activity as it is not integral into the claim as a whole and is not crucial to the inventive concept. See MPEP § 2106.05 (g).
Displaying the optimized symbols for the sentence writing on a display interface of the AAC device – is also insignificant extra solution activity as it is not integral into the claim as a whole and is not crucial to the inventive concept.
The additional elements which were interpreted under step 2A prong 2 as insignificant extra solution activity are re-evaluated in step 2B, and evidence is known that they are nothing more than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional at the time of filing.
Accessing a database that stores a plurality of data, capturing user interactions and evaluation data through a feedback mechanism to the database –Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015), OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93). Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission), OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network), buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network).
Displaying the optimized symbols for the sentence writing on a display interface of the AAC device – Gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result, TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48.
Claims 3-7 and 14-19 claim subject matter which is similarly human-performable to that of claim 1 and are accordingly held as ineligible for the same reasons as given supra.
Claims 8-13 are held as ineligible because they encompass abstract mathematical concepts. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection I.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) A person shall be entitled to a patent unless—
(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention
Claims 1, 3, 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lesher et al (US 2011/0161068 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Lesher discloses a method for optimizing symbols selection in a sentence writing in an Augmentative and Alternative Communication (AAC) device (Abstract) comprising receiving at least one user input (100), encoding the user input as a sequence of indexes (104), augmenting and alternating the sequence of indexes into a plurality of communication symbols (Fig. 2), generating optimal communication symbols for an optimized symbols selection and selecting the optimal communication symbols based on relevance to user input (Fig. 1), and displaying the optimized symbols for the sentence writing on a display interface of the AAC device (¶ [0015]).
Regarding claim 3, Lesher discloses identifying a plurality of concepts based on the at least one user input (Figs. 2 and 3), wherein each concept is represented by an index (Figs. 2 and 3).
Regarding claim 4, Lesher discloses applying a first algebraic model to assign a communication symbol to each identified concept or a null symbol for concepts that lack a direct symbolic representation (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 14, Lesher discloses system for optimizing symbols selection for sentence writing in an Augmentative and Alternative Communication (AAC) device (Abstract) comprising a database (406 – 408) a processor in data communication with the database (402) having instructions thereon that, when executed by the processor, causes the processor to: receive at least one user input (100), encode the user input as a sequence of indexes (104), augment and alternate the sequence of indexes into a plurality of communication symbols (Fig. 2), generate optimal communication symbols for an optimized symbols selection, select the optimal communication symbols based on relevance to user input (Fig. 1), and, display the optimized symbols for the sentence writing on a display interface of the AAC device (¶ [0015]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. If this application names joint inventors, Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lesher in view of Greenberg et al (US 2011/0257977 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Greenberg suggests—where Lesher does not disclose—wherein the database includes but is not limited to a cloud database (¶ [0038]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date of the invention to combine the disclosures of Lesher and Greenberg in order to make the tool a distributed service.
Claims 18 and 19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lesher in view of Durbin et al (US 2024/0127618 A1).
Regarding claim 18, Durbin suggests—where Lesher does not disclose— wherein the vocabulary library is customizable, wherein user-specific symbols are added in the vocabulary library (¶ [0039]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date of the invention to combine the disclosures of Lesher and Durbin in order to make the tool adaptable to customer needs and thus more effective.
Regarding claim 19, Durbin suggests—where Lesher does not disclose— wherein the vocabulary library is customizable, wherein the system is configurable for implementation across various AAC devices (¶ [0039]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date of the invention to combine the disclosures of Lesher and Durbin in order to make the tool adaptable to customer needs and thus more effective.
Conclusion
Claims 2, 5-13, 16 and 17 are not subject to a rejection under 35 USC §§ 102 or 103 herein but remain rejected under § 101 as ineligible subject matter.
The prior art considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and not relied upon is made of record on the attached PTO-892 form.
Xavier et al (US 20250252867 A1) discloses immersive alternative communication.
Durbin et al (US 2024/0127618 A1) discloses quantitative disorder enhanced augmentative/alternative communication.
Paradiso et al (US 20180130459 A1) discloses expressive content generation.
Narayanan (US 20120330669 A1) discloses picture-based communication.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVE ROWLAND whose telephone number is (469) 295-9129. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th 10-8. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor Dmitry Suhol can be reached at (571) 272-4430. The fax number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
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.
Applicant may choose, at his or her discretion, to correspond with Examiner via Internet e-mail. A paper copy of any and all email correspondence will be placed in the appropriate patent application file. Email communication must be authorized in advance. Without a written authorization by applicant in place, the USPTO will not respond via e-mail to any correspondence which contains information subject to the confidentiality requirement as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 122.
Authorization may be perfected by submitting, on a separate paper, the following (or similar) disclaimer:
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with me concerning any subject matter of this application by electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
See MPEP 502.03 for more information.
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.
/STEVE ROWLAND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights