DETAILED ACTION
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 .
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. See 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);and, 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) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent is shown to be commonly owned with this application. See 37 CFR 1.130(b).
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 1-20 are rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,333,523. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-20 of the instant application are directed to a similar subject matter contained in claims 1-20 of the '523 patent. The only difference between the instant application and the '523 patent is merely a labeling difference. It is noted that all the features of claims 1-20 are contained in claims 1-20 of the '523 patent.
Jayaraman (US Pub. No. 20250148439 A1) discloses a computing device, a computer program product, and a computer-implemented method for delivering enhanced financial services and, more particularly, for facilitating automation of recurring financial transactions. A user can have one or more financial transactions saved on command in order to have them executed at any point in time.
The prior art taken alone or in combination failed to teach or suggest:
“receive, at the chat interface via user input, additional action data regarding the action, wherein the additional action data comprises an image associated with the action from the camera application; transmitting, to the remote computing device, a second message comprising the additional action data, including the image associated with the action from the camera application; capturing speech from a user of the mobile electronic device as audio data; converting the audio data into text; receive, at the chat interface via user input, further action data regarding the action, wherein the further action data includes the text; storing, at the remote computing device, the additional action data and the further action data in a record of a ledger comprising one or more records of actions performed by an action device configured to that perform actions for the account; after the storing, executing the language model using the additional action data as input to generate a second string of text indicating storage of the additional data in a record at the remote computing device; and presenting the second string of text at the chat interface of the chat application as recited in independent claim 1.
“receive, at the chat interface via user input, additional action data regarding the action, wherein the additional action data includes the text; transmitting, to the remote computing device, a second message comprising the additional action data, storing, at the remote computing device, the additional action data in a record of a ledger comprising one or more records of actions performed by an action device associated with the account and configured to perform actions associated with the account. after the storing, executing the language model using the additional action data as input to generate a second string of text indicating storage of the additional data in a record at the remote computing device, and presenting the second string of text at the chat interface of the chat application” as recited in independent claim 11.
The above recited limitations provide meaningful limitations that transforms the abstract idea into patent eligible. The claim as a whole effects an improvement to another technology or technical field. These limitations in combination provide meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a practical application.
Avshalumov Y. (US Pat. No. 11157954 B1) disclose a system and method using an offer server computing device, obtaining a first consumer record associated with a first computer source and a second consumer record associated with a second computer source. The offer server computing device is used and using the master record and the generated recommendation to determine electronic offers to present to any of a user, a computing device, or an account that is associated with the master record, the determining the electronic offers is based on an activity associated with a particular master record or a consumer attribute associated with a particular master record. The offer server computing device is used and generating a webpage comprising an electronic receipt with embedded offer information formatted using of XML, SOAP, or JSON and uniform resource locator (URL).
Harirramani et al (US Pub No. 20210201304 A1) disclose a system comprising (100) a processor (112,132,142). A tangible, non-transitory computer-readable medium stores instructions (118,138,148) that cause the processor to receive an input that requests conducting a financial transaction with respect to a financial account that is provided by a financial institution at a user computing device (102). An electronic ledger is adjusted to conduct the financial transaction at a platform server system that is controlled by an entity that is different and distinct from the financial institution.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRANTZY POINVIL whose telephone number is (571)272-6797. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:00AM to 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, Michael Anderson can be reached at 571-270-0508. 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.
/fp/
/FRANTZY POINVIL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3693
May 21, 2026
Prosecution Insights