DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the Applicant Remarks received on February 23, 2026. Claims 22-32 are pending with claims 1-21 canceled and claims 22-32 newly presented.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements filed February 23, 2026 fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.97(c) because they lack the timing fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(p). They have been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered. See MPEP § 609 for further details.
The information disclosure statements filed February 23, 2026 fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.97(c) because they lack a timing statement as specified in 37 CFR 1.97(e). They have been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered. See MPEP § 609 for further details.
Two of the three information disclosure statements filed February 23, 2026 fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered. See MPEP § 609 for further details.
Drawings
The subject matter of this application admits of illustration by a drawing to facilitate understanding of the invention. Applicant is required to furnish a drawing under 37 CFR 1.81(c). No new matter may be introduced in the required drawing. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d).
New corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in this application because the Applicant has canceled all drawings as a result of the objection to the initial drawings filed May 28, 2025 in the Non-Final Office Action filed October 21, 2025.
Applicant is advised to employ the services of a competent patent draftsperson outside the Office, as the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office no longer prepares new drawings. The corrected drawings are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The requirement for corrected drawings will not be held in abeyance.
INFORMATION ON HOW TO EFFECT DRAWING CHANGES
Replacement Drawing Sheets
Drawing changes must be made by presenting replacement sheets which incorporate the desired changes and which comply with 37 CFR 1.84. An explanation of the changes made must be presented either in the drawing amendments section, or remarks, section of the amendment paper. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). A replacement sheet must include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of the amended drawing(s) must not be labeled as “amended.” If the changes to the drawing figure(s) are not accepted by the examiner, applicant will be notified of any required corrective action in the next Office action. No further drawing submission will be required, unless applicant is notified.
Identifying indicia, if provided, should include the title of the invention, inventor’s name, and application number, or docket number (if any) if an application number has not been assigned to the application. If this information is provided, it must be placed on the front of each sheet and within the top margin.
Annotated Drawing Sheets
A marked-up copy of any amended drawing figure, including annotations indicating the changes made, may be submitted or required by the examiner. The annotated drawing sheet(s) must be clearly labeled as “Annotated Sheet” and must be presented in the amendment or remarks section that explains the change(s) to the drawings.
Timing of Corrections
Applicant is required to submit acceptable corrected drawings within the time period set in the Office action. See 37 CFR 1.85(a). Failure to take corrective action within the set period will result in ABANDONMENT of the application.
If corrected drawings are required in a Notice of Allowability (PTOL-37), the new drawings MUST be filed within the THREE MONTH shortened statutory period set for reply in the “Notice of Allowability.” Extensions of time may NOT be obtained under the provisions of 37 CFR 1.136 for filing the corrected drawings after the mailing of a Notice of Allowability.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The specification exhibits non-consecutive paragraph numbering. It is unclear whether paragraph numbers are being skipped, with minor consequence to the disclosure, or whether full paragraphs are missing from the Applicant’s intended disclosure.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claims 1-24 and 26-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abdelhak [US20180144651A1] and Musgrave [US6208746B1].
Regarding claims 1-21, the Applicant has elected to cancel the claims following the Non-Final Office Action filed October 21, 2025 in the remarks filed February 23, 2026.
Regarding claim 22, Abdelhak discloses:
A computer-implemented method for generating a self-referential audiovisual instructional presentation, the method comprising:
receiving, by one or more processors from a user computing device, a first set of digital data representing a user’s physical appearance (Abdelhak, Claim 1, “…an avatar file creating module configured to receive the pupil's photos and to…produce thereby an avatar video file in which the lesson text is delivered by an avatar having the likeness of said pupil.”) and a second set of digital data representing the user’s voice (Abdelhak, Claim 3, “…a module for receiving voice samples of the pupil, analyzing the voice samples and deriving therefrom pupil voice characteristics and modifying the teacher's sounds based on the pupil's voice characteristics to obtain an avatar voice that mimics the pupil's voice.”);
generating, by the one or more processors,
a digital avatar of the user based on the first set of digital data (Abdelhak, Claim 1, “…produce thereby an avatar video file in which the lesson text is delivered by an avatar having the likeness of said pupil.”), and
a synthesized voice model of the user based on the second set of digital data (Abdelhak, Claim 3, “…analyzing the voice samples and deriving therefrom pupil voice characteristics and modifying the teacher's sounds based on the pupil's voice characteristics to obtain an avatar voice that mimics the pupil's voice.”);
receiving, by the one or more processors, instructional content in a digital format,
wherein the instructional content comprises information not previously mastered by the user (Abdelhak, Claim 12, “…a registration module configured to enable a plurality of lesson texts to be available for downloading by individual students and/or educators.”);
generating, by the one or more processors, a synchronized audiovisual stream by animating the digital avatar to present the instructional content using the synthesized voice model, wherein the digital avatar appears to be performing the instructional content (Abdelhak, [0008], “…creating from the base video file an intermediate video file in which the teacher's facial orientations and movements are produced in an animated form and the teacher's sounds are synchronized to the intermediate video file…”); and
transmitting, by the one or more processors, the synchronized audiovisual stream for display exclusively on the user computing device associated with the same authenticated user account from which the first and second sets of digital data originated (Abdelhak, [0029], “The virtual class, game scenario, proof of lesson and/or test, where some of the interactions may be shown, can be provided by a program hosted on the pupil's computer, station, gaming console, a remote server or any combinations thereof.”).
Abdelhak, however, does not explicitly disclose authentication procedures for the user computing device to the extent of the instant application.
Musgrave, however, discloses:
the user computing device associated with an authenticated user account (Musgrave, col 4, lines 44-47, “Accordingly, end-to-end electronic transactions are provided with secure authentication and protection from fraud and unauthorized use, such as by theft.”).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of biometric security authentication to Abdelhak would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of security authentication to the teachings of Abdelhak would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such cybersecurity features into similar systems/methods. Further, applying biometric forms of security authentication to Abdelhak with the use of voice features and facial features, would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow a more secure system.
Regarding claim 23, Abdelhak/Musgrave discloses:
The method of claim 22, wherein generating the digital avatar comprises
applying one or more computer vision algorithms to the first set of digital data to create a three-dimensional facial model of the user (Abdelhak, [0028], “In some embodiments, a three dimensional face will be derived from the picture and act as the avatar's face.”).
Regarding claim 24, Abdelhak/Musgrave discloses:
The method of claim 22, wherein generating the synthesized voice model comprises
training a deep learning model on the second set of digital data to identify and replicate unique voice characteristics of the user (See citations from claim 1 regarding the use of voice samples to create a voice model. Although, the term “training” is not used, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand voice cloning must be completed by training a learning model.).
Regarding claim 26, Abdelhak/Musgrave discloses:
The method of claim 22, further comprising:
(f) receiving, by the one or more processors, user interaction data generated from the user’s interaction with the synchronized audiovisual stream (Abdelhak, Claim 10, “…the teaching system is configured to produce cumulative response scores relative to pupil responses and to display those response scores on the screen.”); and
(g) dynamically adapting, by the one or more processors, subsequent instructional content based on the user interaction data (Abdelhak, [0024], “In some embodiments, the program will provide for proof of lessons for the students. This can be done after a teaching session or as a review of lessons. The students may ask a question of their teacher, the pupil, during the proof of lesson.” and Abdelhak, [0024], “In some embodiments, a game scenario will be presented to the pupil where they are instructing the teacher avatar and/or one or more students in some activity. Points will accumulate and/or deduct based on input by the pupil. In some embodiments, when the pupil reaches predetermined amount of points, the pupil will advance to a new level.” In both scenarios, the content (e.g., teaching content or game content) is dynamically adapted. In the first scenario, the content presented is dynamically adapted by answering questions. In the second scenario, the game content is dynamically adapted as the avatar is acting based on user instruction.).
Regarding claim 27, Abdelhak/Musgrave discloses:
The method of claim 26, wherein dynamically adapting comprises
adjusting at least one of a difficulty level, a presentation style, or a pacing of the subsequent instructional content (See citations of claim 26. In the first scenario, presentation style changes from a standard presentation to a Question & Answer format. In the second scenario, the level changes (i.e., difficulty level changes and/or pacing) based on points accumulated by the user.).
Regarding claim 28, the written contents of an instructional method/system, such as the topic of instructional content, do not functionally or structurally relate to the physical substrate of the invention; therefore, any claim limitation directed towards the printed matter within the invention does not provide patentable weight over the prior art. As cited in the MPEP, "[O]nce it is determined that the limitation is directed to printed matter, [the examiner] must then determine if the matter is functionally or structurally related to the associated physical substrate, and only if the answer is ‘no’ is the printed matter owed no patentable weight." Id. at 850, 117 USPQ2d at 1268 (See MPEP 2111.05 on Functional and Nonfunctional Descriptive Material.).
Furthermore, a functional or structural relationship between the printed matter and the physical substrate of the invention alone is insufficient to provide patentable weight over a prior art. As cited in the MPEP, the relationship must be “new and nonobvious” (MPEP 2111.05, Section II). As the listed groups within claim 28 are standard topics of instruction, the claim does not present anything new or nonobvious.
Regarding claim 29, Abdelhak/Musgrave discloses:
The method of claim 22, wherein transmitting the synchronized audiovisual stream for display exclusively on the user computing device is secured by associating a unique biometric identifier derived from the first or second set of digital data with the authenticated user account (Musgrave, col 3, lines 19-24, “In order to receive the requested data bitstream 20, the user 12 must first physically access a biometric scanner 22; for example, an iris or retinal scanner, a fingerprint and/or hand geometry scanner, a microphone and speech recognition system for recognizing speech patterns, etc.”).
Regarding claim 30, Abdelhak/Musgrave discloses:
The method of claim 22, further comprising:
f) providing, by the one or more processors, a content exchange framework that enables third-party content creators to upload instructional content for use in step (c) (Abdelhak, [0011], “The system may further include a billing system configured to enable member of the public to view clips of lessons, including abstracts of lesson, and to purchase specific lessons.”); and
(g) enabling, by the one or more processors, the user to access the third-party instructional content through the authenticated user account (See citation directly above. The ability to sell instructional content online shows the functionality of uploading the content and allowing a third-party to access the material the third-party purchases.).
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abdelhak and Musgrave as applied to claims 1-24 and 26-30 above, and further in view of Prakash [WO2024233462A1].
Regarding claim 25, Abdelhak/Musgrave discloses training a model on vocal features and facial features of a user. Abdelhak/Musgrave does not explicitly disclose the learning model being a transformer model.
Prakash, however, discloses:
The method of claim 24, wherein the deep learning model is a transformer model (Prakash, [0010], “the multilingual TTS text encoder utilizes transformer-based models for efficient encoding of input character sequences.”).
Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself - that is in the substitution of the training model of Abdelhak/Musgrave for the transformer-based model of Prakash.
Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 2 of 4 of the Remarks, filed February 23, 2026, with respect to the objection of the Abstract have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of the abstract has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments, see amended claims, filed February 23, 2026, with respect to the objection of claim 1 have been fully considered and is persuasive. The objection of claim 1 has been withdrawn due to being canceled by the Applicant.
Applicant's arguments, see page 4 of 4 of the Remarks, filed February 23, 2026, with respect to the objections to the specification have been fully considered and is persuasive. The objection of the specification has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of objection is made in view of the amended specification. Please refer to the corresponding section above for further details.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 2-3 of 4 of the Remarks, filed February 23, 2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-21 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 1-21 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, filed February 23, 2026, fails to provide arguments with respect to the rejection of claims 1-21 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b); however, given the cancelation of claims 1-21, the Examiner has withdrawn the rejection of claims 1-21 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
In any future remarks, Applicant should submit an argument under the heading “Remarks” pointing out disagreements with the examiner’s contentions.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 3 of 4 of the Remarks, filed February 23, 2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1, 6, 11, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive due to the cancelation of the claims by the Applicant. Therefore, the rejection of claims 1, 6, 11, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. 102 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 3 of 4 of the Remarks, filed February 23, 2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 2-5, 7-10, 12-15, and 17-21 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive due to the cancelation of the claims by the Applicant. Therefore, the rejection of claims 2-5, 7-10, 12-15, and 17-21 under 35 U.S.C. 103 has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of the newly presented claims. Please refer to the corresponding section above for further details.
In response to applicant's argument that “independent claim 22 is not anticipated by Abdelhak” (Remarks, page 3 of 4, para 4) because, “the core purpose of Abdelhak is communication between different users” (Remarks, page 3 of 4, para 4) and “the method of claim 22 is directed to a self-referential instructional purpose” (Remarks, page 3 of 4, para 5), a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
In terms of the applicant’s argument that, “claim 22(e) recites transmitting the audiovisual stream for display exclusively on the user computing device associated with the same authenticated user account” (Remarks, page 3 of 4, para 5), the Examiner respectfully submits that this concept is the same as sending correspondence to one’s self as is a standard feature in a traditional messaging platform. By way of illustration, a subscriber may transmit a text message to the same phone number from which the message originates, and the message will be received on the device associated with that number.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the concept of sending a message to a separate individual is the same as sending correspondence to one’s self as is a standard feature in a traditional messaging platform. By way of illustration, a subscriber may transmit a text message to the same phone number from which the message originates, and the message will be received on the device associated with that number.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 4 of 4 of the Remarks, filed February 23, 2026, with respect to the objections of Figures 1-12 the drawings have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the objection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of objection is made in view of the Applicant canceling all drawings previously presented.
Regarding the Applicant’s argument that “as the application has been amended to contain only method claims, drawings are not necessary for an understanding of the invention. MPEP 601.01(f) states that it is USPTO practice to treat an application containing at least one method claim as an application for which a drawing is not necessary under 35 U.S.C. 113”, the Examiner respectfully submits that MPEP 601.01(f), recites:
“Editor Note: This section is only applicable to applications filed prior to December 18, 2013 or to design applications. Applications, which are not design applications, filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) or (b) on or after December 18, 2013 are entitled to a filing date even if the application does not contain drawings. If such an application is filed without drawings, it may be completed subsequent to its filing date. See 37 CFR 1.53(e) and MPEP § 601.01(g).” (MPEP 601.01(f)).
The Instant Application was filed on May 28, 2025 with claimed benefit to U.S. Provisional Application # 63/795,733 filed on April 28, 2025 (i.e., after December 18, 2013) and is a utility application (i.e., not a design application); therefore, the section cited is irrelevant to the Instant Application. Furthermore, regarding the portion of the quote above that recites, “Applications, which are not design applications, filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) or (b) on or after December 18, 2013 are entitled to a filing date even if the application does not contain drawings. If such an application is filed without drawings, it may be completed subsequent to its filing date”, the Examiner respectfully submits that the application remains entitled to a filing date and is not a basis of this objection.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
This action is a final rejection and closes the prosecution of this application. Applicant’s reply under 37 CFR 1.113 to this action is limited to an appeal to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, an amendment complying with the requirements set forth below, or a request for continued examination (RCE) to reopen prosecution where permitted. Please note that the Office also offers initiatives that are available to applicants after the close of prosecution. See https://www.uspto.gov/patents/initiatives/uspto-patent-applications-iniatives-timeline for more information.
General information on the Patent Trial and Appeal Board is available at: www.uspto.gov/patents/ptab. The information at this page includes guidance on time limited options that may assist the applicant contemplating appealing an examiner’s rejection. It also includes information on pro bono (free) legal services and advice available for those who are under-resourced and considering an appeal at: https://www.uspto.gov/patents/ptab/free-legal-assistance. The page is best reviewed promptly after applicant has received a final rejection or the claims have been twice rejected because some of the noted assistance must be requested within one month from the date of the latest rejection. See MPEP § 1204 for more information on filing a notice of appeal.
If applicant should desire to appeal any rejection made by the examiner, a Notice of Appeal must be filed within the period for reply. The Notice of Appeal must be accompanied by the fee required by 37 CFR 41.20(b)(1). The current fee amount is available at: www.uspto.gov/Fees.
If applicant should desire to file an after-final amendment, entry of the proposed amendment cannot be made as a matter of right unless it merely cancels claims or complies with a formal requirement made in a previous Office action. Amendments touching the merits of the application which otherwise might not be proper may be admitted upon a showing of good and sufficient reasons why they are necessary and why they were not presented earlier.
A reply under 37 CFR 1.113 to a final rejection must include cancellation of or appeal from the rejection of, each rejected claim. The filing of an amendment after final rejection, whether or not it is entered, does not stop the running of the statutory period for reply to the final rejection unless the examiner holds all of the claims to be in condition for allowance.
If applicant should desire to continue prosecution in a utility or plant application filed on or after May 29, 2000 and have the finality of this Office action withdrawn, an RCE under 37 CFR 1.114 may be filed within the period for reply. See MPEP § 706.07(h) for more information on the requirements for filing an RCE.
The application will become abandoned unless a Notice of Appeal, an after final reply that places the application in condition for allowance, or an RCE has been filed properly within the period for reply, or any extension of this period obtained under either 37 CFR 1.136(a) or (b).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZACHARY JOSEPH POLLOCK whose telephone number is (703)756-5952. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10:00am-8:00pm ET.
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, XUAN THAI can be reached at (571) 272-7147. 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.
/Z.J.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/XUAN M THAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715