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
This office action is responsive to premilitary amendment filed on 3/17/2025. Claim 1 was cancelled and claims 2-21 were newly added.
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.
The pending claims 2-21 are rejected on the ground of Non-statutory Obviousness-type Double Patenting as being unpatentable over the claims of patents Nos. 11,128,589; 11438,289, 11729,125 and 12,238,056. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct. The patented claims and the current claims present subject matter which is directed to substantially overlapping methods and system for moderating electronic messages using a moderator application operating on a computing platform, including managing and filtering queues of electronic messages, presenting electronic messages through an interface responsive to user gestures, and facilitating or performing actions with respect to the electronic messages. The current claims characterize and analyze message content to determine attributes and classification values, and the arrangement of electronic messages for moderation as a function of message attribute data, repress an obvious variation of the message moderation, message attribute analysis, queue management, filtering and automated action functionality recited by the patents claims. Specifically, the patented claims already encompass arranging and processing electronic messages based upon message attributes in the moderator/queue environment. Accordingly, the current claims do not constitute a patentably distinct invention from the subject matter previously claimed in the referenced patents.
U.S. Patent No. 11,128,589.
The pending claims are rejected on the ground of non-statutory obvious-type double patenting over the claims (1-19) of U.S. Patent 11,128,589. Although the claims are not identical, the currently claimed moderator application, electronic message queues, gesture-based moderation, filtering and automatic actions are not patentably distinct from the patented claims.
U.S. Patent No. 11,438,289.
The pending claims are rejected on the ground of non-statutory obvious-type double patenting over the claims (1-20) of U.S. Patent 11,438,289. Although the claims are not identical, the currently claimed message moderation, gesture-based interface, queue management, message attribute analysis and arrangement, filtering and automatic actions constitute an obvious variation of the patented claims.
U.S. Patent No. 11,729,125.
The pending claims are rejected on the ground of non-statutory obvious-type double patenting over the claims (1-20) of U.S. Patent 11,438,289. Although the claims are not identical, the currently claimed message moderation, gesture-based interface, queue management, message attribute analysis and arrangement, filtering and automatic actions constitute an obvious variation of the patented claims.
U.S. Patent No. 12,238,056.
The pending claims are rejected on the ground of non-statutory obvious-type double patenting over the claims (1-20) of U.S. Patent 12,238,056. Although the claims are not identical, the currently claimed message moderation, gesture-based interface, queue management, message attribute analysis and arrangement, filtering and automatic actions constitute an obvious variation of the patented claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Mora U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2018/0033019, Automated Social Media queuing System teaches an automated queue is provided including processing circuitry configured to receive one or more posts from a social media platform associated with a target entity, generate a case including the content of a post, enter the case in a virtual queue for agent review, in response to the case reaching the front of the virtual queue, causing the content to be displayed to an agent on a user interface, receive a response from the user interface, and cause the response to be posted to the social media platform.
Srin9vasan et al. U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2015/0317562, Automation Moderation Online Content, discloses techniques for automatically modeling and predicting moderator actions for online content. A model can be generated or updated based on the content received and the action or actions taken by the moderator in response to receiving the content. The model can be used to automatically predict which action, or combination of actions, are likely to be taken by the moderator when new content is received, and suggest those action(s) to the moderator. These suggestions can, among other things, simplify and speed up the decision-making process for the moderator.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARGON N NANO whose telephone number is (571)272-4007. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 AM-3:30 PM. M.S.T..
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, Nicholas Taylor can be reached at 571 272 3889. 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.
/SARGON N NANO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2443
