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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1–20 have been submitted for examination.
Claims 1–20 have been examined and rejected.
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 §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) 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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1–20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1–20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,140,450.
US 19/043,125 Claim 1
US 11,140,450 Claim 1
A method comprising:
A method for recommending content in context of a conversation, the method comprising:
monitoring a remote conversation between a plurality of users, wherein a voice component of the conversation is captured using at least one microphone of at least one of a plurality of user devices;
monitoring, with user equipment, verbal conversation between a plurality of users;
determining whether one of the plurality of users is logged into the user equipment;
in response to determining that one of the plurality of users is logged into the user equipment, activating a listening mode;
analyzing the conversation to extract a plurality of keywords;
as the verbal conversation continues, processing words in the verbal conversation to selectively retrieve keywords from the words in the verbal conversation;
detecting the keywords in the verbal conversation without receiving a wakeword based on the selectively retrieved keywords;
identifying, using a control circuitry, a database corresponding to at least one keyword of the extracted plurality of keywords;
searching a plurality of clips for a clip matching one of the keywords by:
comparing metadata associated with each of the plurality of clips with the detected keywords, and
searching the identified database for content associated with the at least one keyword; and
selecting, based on the comparing, the clip of the plurality of clips having metadata matching a greater number of the keywords than another one of the plurality of clips having metadata matching at least one of the keywords; and
without receiving additional user input requesting a display of supplemental items, causing a display, on at least one of the plurality of user devices, of a plurality of supplemental items, wherein the plurality of supplemental items comprises at least one hyperlink for accessing the content associated with the at least one keyword.
automatically, without receiving the wakeword, presenting the clip to the users during the verbal conversation.
Claims 1 and 11 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,140,450. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because instant claims 1 and 11 are anticipated by the conflicting patented claim 1 as shown in the table above. The difference between the instant examined claim and the conflicting patented claim is that the conflicting patented claim is narrower in scope and falls within the scope of the examined claim. Thus, the species or sub-genus claimed in the conflicting patent anticipates the examined claimed genus. Therefore, a patent to the examined claim genus would improperly extend the right to exclude granted by a patent to the species or sub-genus should the genus issue as a patent after the species or sub-genus. See MPEP §804(II)(B)(1).
Instant dependent claims 2–10, and 12–20 contain similar limitations as patented dependent claims 2–10, and 12–20, and are rejected for similar reasons as independent claims 1, and 11.
Claims 1–20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1–20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,716,514.
US 19/043,125 Claim 1
US 11,716,514 Claim 1
A method comprising:
A method for recommending content in context of a conversation, the method comprising:
monitoring a remote conversation between a plurality of users, wherein a voice component of the conversation is captured using at least one microphone of at least one of a plurality of user devices;
monitoring, with user equipment, verbal conversation between a plurality of users;
analyzing the conversation to extract a plurality of keywords;
as the verbal conversation continues, processing words in the verbal conversation to selectively retrieve keywords from the words in the verbal conversation;
detecting keywords in the verbal conversation without receiving a wakeword based on the selectively retrieved keywords;
identifying, using a control circuitry, a database corresponding to at least one keyword of the extracted plurality of keywords;
identifying a content type associated with the detected keywords;
selecting a content source to search based on the identified content type;
searching the identified database for content associated with the at least one keyword; and
searching for a clip matching one of the detected keywords from the selected content source; and
without receiving additional user input requesting a display of supplemental items, causing a display, on at least one of the plurality of user devices, of a plurality of supplemental items, wherein the plurality of supplemental items comprises at least one hyperlink for accessing the content associated with the at least one keyword.
automatically, without receiving the wakeword, presenting the clip to the users during the verbal conversation.
Claims 1 and 11 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,716,514. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because instant claims 1 and 11 are anticipated by the conflicting patented claim 1 as shown in the table above. The difference between the instant examined claim and the conflicting patented claim is that the conflicting patented claim is narrower in scope and falls within the scope of the examined claim. Thus, the species or sub-genus claimed in the conflicting patent anticipates the examined claimed genus. Therefore, a patent to the examined claim genus would improperly extend the right to exclude granted by a patent to the species or sub-genus should the genus issue as a patent after the species or sub-genus. See MPEP §804(II)(B)(1).
Instant dependent claims 2–10, and 12–20 contain similar limitations as patented dependent claims 2–9, and 11–20, and are rejected for similar reasons as independent claims 1, and 11.
Claims 1–20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1–20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,244,900.
US 19/043,125 Claim 1
US 12,244,900 Claim 1
A method comprising:
A method comprising:
monitoring a remote conversation between a plurality of users, wherein a voice component of the conversation is captured using at least one microphone of at least one of a plurality of user devices;
monitoring, with user equipment, interactions among a plurality of users;
analyzing the conversation to extract a plurality of keywords;
analyzing the interactions to extract a plurality of keywords from the interactions;
identifying, using a control circuitry, a database corresponding to at least one keyword of the extracted plurality of keywords;
identifying, with control circuitry, a plurality of databases, each database corresponding to at least one of the extracted plurality of keywords;
searching the identified database for content associated with the at least one keyword; and
searching the identified databases for content associated with the extracted keywords; and
without receiving additional user input requesting a display of supplemental items, causing a display, on at least one of the plurality of user devices, of a plurality of supplemental items, wherein the plurality of supplemental items comprises at least one hyperlink for accessing the content associated with the at least one keyword.
without receiving additional user input, displaying, on a display device operatively connected to the user equipment, a keyword of the extracted plurality of keywords.
Claims 1 and 11 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,140,450. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because instant claims 1 and 11 are anticipated by the conflicting patented claim 1 as shown in the table above. The difference between the instant examined claim and the conflicting patented claim is that the conflicting patented claim is narrower in scope and falls within the scope of the examined claim. Thus, the species or sub-genus claimed in the conflicting patent anticipates the examined claimed genus. Therefore, a patent to the examined claim genus would improperly extend the right to exclude granted by a patent to the species or sub-genus should the genus issue as a patent after the species or sub-genus. See MPEP §804(II)(B)(1).
Instant dependent claims 2–10, and 12–20 contain similar limitations as patented dependent claims 2–10, and 12–20, and are rejected for similar reasons as independent claims 1, and 11.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL B PIERORAZIO whose telephone number is (571)270-3679. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday, 8am - 5pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nasser Goodarzi can be reached on 5712704195. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If 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.
/MICHAEL B. PIERORAZIO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2426
Prosecution Insights