Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. PCT/US2019/013752 that claims benefit of provisional appl. No. 62785263 (note page 3 of the Application Data Sheet, filed on 1/17/2025, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application. The correct info appears to be provisional appl. No. 62785563 (make corrections on page 3 of the Application Data Sheet, filed on 1/17/2025).
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 1-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,263,910. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the scope of the claims are nearly identical as compared below wherein the difference between the two sets of claims is in the form of the claims and not the scope of the claims.
Instant Application
U.S. Patent No. 12,263,910
Claim 1:
A method implemented by one or more processors, the method comprising: determining that multiple instances of data, of a first user, correspond to a second user, wherein the multiple instances of data include a first instance of data that characterizes an interaction between the first user and the second user from a first application of a client device of the first user and a second instance of data that characterizes a correspondence between the first user and the second user from a second application, of the client device, that is different from the first application, wherein the first instance of data comprises message data;
in response to determining that the multiple instances of data correspond to the second user:
generating content for rendering at an interface of the client device, wherein generating the content comprises:
causing the multiple instances of data to be processed by a trained machine learning model to generate output that reflects a synopsis of the multiple instances of data, and including the synopsis, reflected by the output, in the content, wherein the synopsis comprises at least a portion of the message data;
determining an anticipated communication interaction between the first user and the second user; and
in response to determining the anticipated communication interaction between the first user and the second user:
causing the client device to render the content at the interface of the client device.
Claim 1:
A method implemented by one or more processors, the method comprising: determining that multiple instances of data, of a first user, correspond to a second user, wherein the multiple instances of data include a first instance of data that characterizes an interaction between the first user and the second user from a first application of a client device of the first user and a second instance of data that characterizes a correspondence between the first user and the second user from a second application, of the client device, that is different from the first application, wherein the first instance of data comprises message data;
in response to determining that the multiple instances of data correspond to the second user:
generating pre-call content for rendering at an interface of the client device when the first user is receiving an incoming call from the second user, wherein generating the pre-call content comprises:
causing the multiple instances of data to be processed by a trained machine learning model to generate output that reflects a synopsis of the multiple instances of data, and including the synopsis, reflected by the output, in the pre-call content, wherein the synopsis comprises at least a portion of the message data;
determining that the second user has initialized a call to the first user via a wireless communication protocol; and
in response to determining that the second user has initialized the call and when the client device is waiting for the first user to indicate acceptance of the call:
causing the client device to render the pre-call content at the interface of the client device.
Claim 2:
The method of claim 1, wherein the first application is one of a calendar application, a chat application, and a web browser application, and wherein the second application is a separate one of the calendar application, the chat application, and the web browser application.
Claim 2:
The method of claim 1, wherein the first application is one of a calendar application, a chat application, and a web browser application, and wherein the second application is a separate one of the calendar application, the chat application, and the web browser application.
Claim 3:
The method of claim 1, wherein the first instance of data from the first application includes a message that is from the second user and that is directed to the first user.
Claim 3:
The method of claim 1, wherein the first instance of data from the first application includes a message that is from the second user and that is directed to the first user.
Claim 4:
The method of claim 3, wherein the second instance of data from the second application includes an additional message that is from the second user and that is directed to the first user.
Claim 4:
The method of claim 3, wherein the second instance of data from the second application includes an additional message that is from the second user and that is directed to the first user.
Claim 5:
The method of claim 3, wherein the second instance of data includes a calendar entry in which the second user is identified as an invitee.
Claim 5:
The method of claim 3, wherein the second instance of data includes a calendar entry in which the second user is identified as an invitee.
Claim 6:
The method of claim 1, wherein the first instance of data includes a calendar entry in which the second user is identified as an invitee.
Claim 6:
The method of claim 1, wherein the first instance of data includes a calendar entry in which the second user is identified as an invitee.
Claim 7:
The method of claim 1, wherein generating the content occurs prior to determining the anticipated communication interaction between the first user and the second user.
Claim 7:
The method of claim 1, wherein said generating the pre-call content occurs prior to determining that the second user has initialized the call to the first user.
Claim 8:
The method of claim 7, wherein the content is cached locally at the client device prior to determining the anticipated communication interaction between the first user and the second user.
Claim 8:
The method of claim 7, wherein the pre-call content is cached locally at the client device prior to determining that the second user has initialized the call to the first user.
Claim 9:
The method of claim 1, wherein the interface of the client device includes an audio interface and causing the client device to render the content at the interface of the client device includes: causing the audio interface to render audio corresponding to the content.
Claim 9:
The method of claim 1, wherein the interface of the client device includes an audio interface and causing the client device to render the pre-call content at the interface of the client device includes: causing the audio interface to render audio corresponding to the pre-call content.
Claim 10:
The method of claim 1, wherein the interface of the client device includes a display interface and causing the client device to render the content at the interface of the client device includes: causing the display interface to render graphical content corresponding to the content.
Claim 10:
The method of claim 1, wherein the interface of the client device includes a display interface and causing the client device to render the pre-call content at the interface of the client device includes: causing the display interface to render graphical content corresponding to the pre-call content.
Claim 11:
A client device comprising: microphones; a display interface; memory storing instructions; one or more processors operable to execute the instructions to: determine that multiple instances of data, of a first user, correspond to a second user, wherein the multiple instances of data include a first instance of data that characterizes an interaction between the first user and the second user from a first application of the client device and a second instance of data that characterizes a correspondence between the first user and the second user from a second application, of the client device, that is different from the first application, wherein the first instance of data comprises message data; in response to determining that the multiple instances of data correspond to the second user: generate content for rendering at the display interface of the client device, wherein in generating the content one or more of the processors are to: cause the multiple instances of data to be processed by a trained machine learning model to generate output that reflects a synopsis of the multiple instances of data, and include the synopsis, reflected by the output, in the content, wherein the synopsis comprises at least a portion of the message data; determine an anticipated communication interaction between the first user and the second user; and in response to determining the anticipated communication interaction between the first user and the second user: cause the client device to render the content at the interface of the client device.
Claim 11:
A client device comprising: microphones; a display interface; memory storing instructions; one or more processors operable to execute the instructions to: determine that multiple instances of data, of a first user, correspond to a second user, wherein the multiple instances of data include a first instance of data that characterizes an interaction between the first user and the second user from a first application of the client device and a second instance of data that characterizes a correspondence between the first user and the second user from a second application, of the client device, that is different from the first application, wherein the first instance of data comprises message data; in response to determining that the multiple instances of data correspond to the second user: generate pre-call content for rendering at the display interface of the client device when the first user is receiving an incoming call from the second user, wherein in generating the pre-call content one or more of the processors are to: cause the multiple instances of data to be processed by a trained machine learning model to generate output that reflects a synopsis of the multiple instances of data, and include the synopsis, reflected by the output, in the pre-call content, wherein the synopsis comprises at least a portion of the message data; determine that the second user has initialized a call to the first user; and in response to determining that the second user has initialized the call and before acceptance of the call has been indicated at the client device: cause rendering the pre-call content at the display interface.
Claim 12:
The client device of claim 11, wherein the first application is one of a calendar application, a chat application, and a web browser application, and wherein the second application is a separate one of the calendar application, the chat application, and the web browser application.
Claim 12:
The client device of claim 11, wherein the first application is one of a calendar application, a chat application, and a web browser application, and wherein the second application is a separate one of the calendar application, the chat application, and the web browser application.
Claim 13:
The client device of claim 11, wherein the first instance of data from the first application includes a message that is from the second user.
Claim 13:
The client device of claim 11, wherein the first instance of data from the first application includes a message that is from the second user.
Claim 14:
The client device of claim 13, wherein the second instance of data from the second application includes an additional message that is from the second user.
Claim 14:
The client device of claim 13, wherein the second instance of data from the second application includes an additional message that is from the second user.
Claim 15:
The client device of claim 13, wherein the second instance of data includes a calendar entry in which the second user is identified as an invitee.
Claim 15:
The client device of claim 13, wherein the second instance of data includes a calendar entry in which the second user is identified as an invitee.
Claim 16:
The client device of claim 11, wherein the first instance of data includes a calendar entry in which the second user is identified as an invitee.
Claim 16:
The client device of claim 11, wherein the first instance of data includes a calendar entry in which the second user is identified as an invitee.
Claim 17:
The client device of claim 11, wherein generating the content occurs prior to determining the anticipated communication interaction between the first user and the second user.
Claim 17:
The client device of claim 11, wherein said generating the pre-call content occurs prior to determining that the second user has initialized the call to the first user.
Claim 18:
The client device of claim 17, wherein the content is cached locally at the client device prior to determining the anticipated communication interaction between the first user and the second user.
Claim 18:
The client device of claim 17, wherein the pre-call content is cached locally at the client device prior to determining that the second user has initialized the call to the first user.
Claim 19:
The client device of claim 11, wherein the client device further includes an audio interface and wherein at least one of the one or more processors are further to, in response to determining the anticipated communication interaction between the first user and the second user, cause the content to be rendered at the audio interface.
Claim 19:
The client device of claim 11, wherein the client device further includes an audio interface and wherein at least one of the one or more of the processors are further to, in response to determining that the second user has initialized the call and before acceptance of the call has been indicated at the client device, cause the pre-call content to be rendered at the audio interface.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. 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. 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(s) 1, 3, 6-11, 13 and 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trysit Nitidharmatut et al. US 2025/0097349 (hereinafter Trysit).
Regarding claim 1, Trysit teaches a method implemented by one or more processors (see 1601, 1603, 1605 in Fig.16), the method comprising: determining that multiple instances of data, of a first user, correspond to a second user, wherein the multiple instances of data include a first instance of data that characterizes an interaction between the first user and the second user from a first application of a client device of the first user and a second instance of data that characterizes a correspondence between the first user and the second user from a second application, of the client device, that is different from the first application, wherein the first instance of data comprises message data (multiple instances of interaction type data, see 205 in Fig.2 between user 1 and user 2, 101 and 102 in Fig.1, of interaction using first application performed by chatbot 1706 in Fig.17 that outputs messages (e.g. audio, visual) on a device, note [0187], and second application (including “Share a photo”, 205 in Fig.2) visually displaying the content of correspondence between Jill and Mario in Fig.3); in response to determining that the multiple instances of data correspond to the second user: generating content for rendering at an interface of the client device (the content of the communication between the two users are generated at their respective displays, see Fig.3) wherein generating the content comprises: causing the multiple instances of data to be processed by a trained machine learning model to generate output that reflects a synopsis of the multiple instances of data and including the synopsis, reflected by the output, in the content, wherein the synopsis comprises at least a portion of the message data (note [0051] wherein AI or chatbot 1706 provides a synopsis of the data between the users, note [0187], also see Fig.4 wherein synopsis of content of data between users are displayed on their devices); determining an anticipated communication interaction between the first user and the second user (note [0055] “dialer display 304 and a receiver device 301 with a receiver display 302 displaying information before and during dialing… the profiles delivered to each of the devices are specific to both the receiver and the dialer”); and in response to determining the anticipated communication interaction between the first user and the second user: causing the client device to render the content at the interface of the client device (anticipated communication between Jill and Mario, note [0055] “dialer display 304 and a receiver device 301 with a receiver display 302 displaying information before and during dialing”). Although Trysit does not explicitly differentiate a first application from a second application, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to implement as such. Trysit discloses multiple types of interactions (205 in Fig.2). One of ordinary skilled in the art would further recognize that it is beneficial to implement a single application to perform all tasks. At the same time, one of ordinary skilled in the art would also recognize that multiple application can be implemented to perform their tasks separately (also note [0080], [0091] wherein web browsers can be classified as separate applications or proprietary applications). Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to implement Trysit’s applications of having the first application and the second application for the purpose of benefiting from the advantages known to developers of separating different functions into different applications.
Regarding claim 3, Trysit further teaches wherein the first instance of data from the first application includes a message that is from the second user and that is directed to the first user (instances of interaction type data, see 205 in Fig.2 between user 1 and user 2, 101 and 102 in Fig.1).
Regarding claim 6, Trysit further teaches wherein the first instance of data includes a calendar entry (see 303 in Fig.3, the calendar entry of “THIS IS YOUR SUMMARY TODAY”) in which the second user is identified as an invitee (invited to order PIZZA SET A, see 309 in Fig.3).
Regarding claim 7, Trysit further teaches wherein generating the content occurs prior to determining the anticipated communication interaction between the first user and the second user (note [0055] “dialer display 304 and a receiver device 301 with a receiver display 302 displaying information before and during dialing… the profiles delivered to each of the devices are specific to both the receiver and the dialer”).
Regarding claim 8, Trysit further teaches wherein the content is cached locally at the client device prior to determining the anticipated communication interaction between the first user and the second user (note [0059]).
Regarding claim 9, Trysit further teaches wherein the interface of the client device includes an audio interface and causing the client device to render the content at the interface of the client device includes: causing the audio interface to render audio corresponding to the content (multiple instances of interaction type data, see 205 in Fig.2 between user 1 and user 2, 101 and 102 in Fig.1, of interaction using first application performed by chatbot 1706 in Fig.17 that outputs messages (e.g. audio, visual) on a device, note [0187]).
Regarding claim 10, Trysit further teaches wherein the interface of the client device includes a display interface and causing the client device to render the content at the interface of the client device includes: causing the display interface to render graphical content corresponding to the content (see Fig.3 and note [0055]).
Regarding claim 11, Trysit teaches a client device (303 in Fig.3) comprising: microphones (a phone having microphones); a display interface (304); memory storing instructions (memory, note [0005]); one or more processors operable to execute the instructions (see 1601, 1603, 1605 in Fig.16). The further limitations are rejected as applied to claim 1.
Claim(s) 2, 4, 5, 12, 14 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trysit Nitidharmatut et al. US 2025/0097349 (hereinafter Trysit) in view of Figueroa US 2019/0138317 (Figueroa).
Regarding claim 2, Trysit further teaches wherein the first application is one of a calendar application, a chat application, and a web browser application, and wherein the second application is a separate one of the calendar application, the chat application, and the web browser application (multiple instances of interaction type data, see 205 in Fig.2 between user 1 and user 2, 101 and 102 in Fig.1, of interaction using first application performed by chatbot 1706 in Fig.17 that outputs messages (e.g. audio, visual) on a device, note [0187], and second application visually displaying the content of correspondence between Jill and Mario in Fig.3). Although Trysit does not explicitly teach that the displaying content is a web browser application, Figueroa teaches such implementation (note [0007]). Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to implement as such in the system of Trysit because web browser applications are commonly available in any cellphones and computers (such as in Fig.3 of Trysit) and further for the purpose of leveraging conventional web browsers that were formerly limited to older technologies (note [0003]).
Regarding claim 4, Trysit further teaches wherein the second instance of data from the second application includes an additional message that is from the second user and that is directed to the first user (additional message of 305 and 306 being displayed on their respective displays, see Fig.3),.
Regarding claim 5, Trysit further teaches wherein the second instance of data includes a calendar entry (see 303 in Fig.3, the calendar entry “THIS IS YOUR SUMMARY TODAY”) in which the second user is identified as an invitee (invited to order PIZZA SET A, see 309 in Fig.3).
Claims 12, 14 and 15 are rejected as applied to claims 2, 4, and 5, respectively.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAM K. AHN whose telephone number is (571)272-3044. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9-5PM.
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.
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.
/SAM K AHN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2633
