DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1, 9 and 17 are independent.
3. The IDS submitted on 5/31/2026 has been considered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
4. 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.
5. 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 –
(a)(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 1-7, 9-14 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Taylor (US PG Pub. 2018/0349941).
As regarding claims 1, 9 and 17, Taylor discloses (A system comprising a hardware processor and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions that, when executed by the hardware processor, cause the hardware processor to perform [para. 144]) A computer-implemented method of implementing a virtual assistant on a user device, the method comprising:
applying a set of rules defined by a universal data scaffold to user data associated with a user of the user device to generate a recommendation based on a prediction produced by the application of the set of rules [para. 61 and 79-81; applying rules to user data to generate recommendation];
presenting, by the virtual assistant, the recommendation on the user device [para. 61, 79-81 and 99; displaying recommendation/offer to the user] by:
displaying, on the user device, a form including a plurality of fields [FIG. 12; element 925];
mapping the user data to a plurality of attributes included in the universal data scaffold [FIG. 12; element 925 and para. 99; mapping attribute values of the user digital content included in the universal data scaffold];
mapping the plurality of attributes to the plurality of fields [para. 99; automatic entering car attributes into the fields]; and
automatically entering, by the virtual assistant, the user data into the plurality of fields [para. 99; automatic entering car attributes into the fields].
As regarding claims 2 and 18, Taylor further discloses The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the user data further includes location information, and wherein the recommendation is determined based on the location information [para. 51].
As regarding claims 3, 11 and 19, Taylor further discloses The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the recommendation is presented on the user device without receiving a request for information from the user [para. 61, 79-81 and 99; automatically displaying recommendation/offer to the user].
As regarding claims 4, 12 and 20, Taylor further discloses The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the universal data scaffold includes a hierarchical graph including a plurality of nodes, the plurality of nodes representing the plurality of attributes [para. 77; node corresponding to driver license].
As regarding claims 5 and 13, Taylor further discloses The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the set of rules is a first set of rules, and wherein the universal data scaffold is associated with a second set of rules that defines, based on the plurality of attributes, a usage restriction of the user data [para. 32 and 112].
As regarding claims 6 and 14, Taylor further discloses The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising:
performing zero-knowledge encryption on at least a portion of the user data [para. 83-87];
transmitting, over a network to a third-party server, a request for information associated with the recommendation, the request including the portion of the user data [para. 100; transmitting acceptance response]; and
in response to transmitting the request, receiving, from the third-party server, the information associated with the recommendation, wherein presenting the recommendation includes presenting the information received from the third-party server [para. 101; receiving the offer from the vendor].
As regarding claim 7, Taylor further discloses The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving, by the user device from the user, an input including an entry into a field of the plurality of fields; and updating, based on the set of rules, the user data entered in the plurality of fields [para. 63].
As regarding claim 10, Taylor further discloses The computer-readable storage medium of claim 9, wherein the user data includes health information and location information, and wherein the recommendation is determined based on the health information and the location information [para. 51].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. Claims 8 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taylor (US PG Pub. 2018/0349941) in view of Bastide (US PG Pub. 2021/0118560).
As regarding claims 8 and 16, Taylor discloses The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving, by the user device, a message via user-input [para. 63; receiving, by the device, input data];
Taylor does not explicitly disclose detecting, by the virtual assistant, an emotion or mental state associated with the message by applying a sentiment analysis model to the message, wherein the recommendation includes a mental health recommendation based on the emotion or the mental state. However, Bastide discloses it [para. 45-46; determining health conditions].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the effective filing of the invention to modify Taylor’s system to further comprise the missing claim features, as disclosed by Bastide, in order to mitigate user’s health conditions and improve overall user’s health [Bastide para. 20].
10. Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taylor (US PG Pub. 2018/0349941) in view of Lomas (US PG Pub. 2023/0035167).
As regarding claim 15, Taylor discloses The computer-readable storage medium of claim 9, wherein the user data includes genetic data [para. 61], and downloading the universal data scaffold includes downloading an analysis algorithm [para. 99; downloading the universal data scaffold including downloading the program code].
Taylor does not explicitly disclose analyze the genetic data using the genetic analysis algorithm to derive a health trait of the user, wherein the recommendation is based on the derived health trait. However, Lomas discloses analyzing the genetic data using the genetic analysis algorithm to derive a health trait of the user, wherein the recommendation is based on the derived health trait [para. 34].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the effective filing of the invention to modify Taylor’s analyzing data to further comprise analyzing genetic data, as disclosed by Lomas, to determine user’s health condition based on user’s genetic information in order to improve overall user’s health [Lomas para. 34].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THONG P TRUONG whose telephone number is (571)270-7905. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30AM - 5:30PM.
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, Jeffrey Pwu can be reached on 57127267986798. 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.
/THONG TRUONG/
Examiner, Art Unit 2433
/JEFFREY C PWU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2433
Prosecution Insights