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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 1
Step 1, This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim falls within any statutory category. See MPEP 2106.03. The claim recites an apparatus comprising a processor and memory that performs at least one step. Thus, the claim is to a machine, which is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A, Prong One: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04, subsection II, a claim "recites" a judicial exception when the judicial exception is "set forth" or "described" in the claim.
Step “extracting glyph features from the handwritten text using a feature extraction process” This limitation recites a judicial exception under the 2019 PEG because it encompasses mathematical concepts (mathematical calculation) because 'feature extraction' is a process that involves performing calculations on image data to identify patterns.
Step “generating machine-encoded text corresponding to the handwritten text as a function of the glyph features” This limitation recites a judicial exception under the 2019 PEG because it encompasses mathematical concepts because it describes mapping one set of variables (glyph features) to another set (machine-encoded text).
Step “generating the user profile as a function of the machine-encoded text” This limitation recites a judicial exception under the 2019 PEG because it encompasses certain methods of organizing human activity because it involves storing and sorting data to form a "profile."
Step “determining whether the at least a user goal can be achieved as a function of the user profile” This limitation recites a judicial exception under the 2019 PEG because it encompasses mental processes because it involves comparing two data to see if a condition is met (feasibility check). This is similar to observing and evaluating whether a specific result can occur.
Step “generating a modified goal when the at least a user goal cannot be achieved” This limitation recites a judicial exception under the 2019 PEG because it encompasses mental processes because it describes a logical step to adjust a goal based on an evaluation. This is similar to deciding to change a plan when a specific condition fails.
Step “identifying at least an obstacle datum as a function of the user goal and the conditions data.” This limitation recites a judicial exception under the 2019 PEG because it encompasses mental processes (observation) because it requires correlating multiple inputs (e.g., user goal, condition data) to find/identify a specific data (e.g., obstacle).
Step “generate a directed process as a function of the user goal and the obstacle datum.” This limitation recites a judicial exception under the 2019 PEG because it encompasses certain methods of organizing human activity because it involves creating a plan or series of steps based on inputs.
“Unless it is clear that a claim recites distinct exceptions, such as a law of nature and an abstract idea, care should be taken not to parse the claim into multiple exceptions, particularly in claims involving abstract ideas.” MPEP 2106.04, subsection II.B. However, if possible, the examiner should consider the limitations together as a single abstract idea rather than as a plurality of separate abstract ideas to be analyzed individually. “For example, in a claim that includes a series of steps that recite mental steps as well as a mathematical calculation, an examiner should identify the claim as reciting both a mental process and a mathematical concept for Step 2A, Prong One to make the analysis clear on the record.” MPEP 2106.04, subsection II.B. Under such circumstances, however, the Supreme Court has treated such claims in the same manner as claims reciting a single judicial exception. Id. (discussing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (2010)). Here, the mentioned steps fall within the mental process and mathematical concept groupings of abstract ideas and are considered together as a single abstract idea for further analysis. (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Step 2A Prong Two.
The claim recites the additional elements: at least a processor; memory communicatively connected to at least a processor; receiving an image of a physical form; receive conditions data from a conditions database; transmit the directed process to a user device for display. The following sections explain why these limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
MPEP § 2106.05(a) Improvements to the Functioning of a Computer or to Any Other Technology or Technical Field.
The claim does not show an improvement in computer functionality. The feature extraction and text generation are generic data manipulations described by abstract mental steps. There is no technical explanation showing the invention improves existing technology compared to conventional technology. Therefore, this consideration is not met.
MPEP § 2106.05(b) Particular Machine.
The claim does not implement with a particular machine. The "at least a processor" and "memory" are generic computer components, not a particular machine that specifically improves the underlying technology. Using a generic computer to perform these steps amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception on a computer. Therefore, this consideration is not met.
MPEP § 2106.05(c) Particular Transformation.
The claim does not effect a particular transformation of an article. The conversion from physical form text to machine-encoded text remains abstract data manipulation within the computer system. It is not a specific physical transformation in the real world. Therefore, this consideration is not met.
MPEP § 2106.05(e) Other Meaningful Limitations.
The claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the limitations do not impose meaningful limits on the exception. The steps of receiving, analyzing, and transmitting data are extra-solution activity or field-of-use limitations that do not solve a technical problem specific to the computer environment itself. Therefore, this consideration is not met.
MPEP § 2106.05(g) Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity.
The claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the limitations are extra-solution activity. Receiving an image or transmitting data for display are inputs/outputs that do not themselves limit the abstract nature of the mental process. They are insignificant extra-solution activity. Therefore, this consideration is not met.
MPEP § 2106.05(h) Field of Use and Technological Environment.
The claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it merely links the exception to a particular technological environment. Transmitting to a user device for display does not provide a meaningful limit on the recited judicial exception; it is merely a field-of-use or linking limitation. Therefore, this consideration is not met.
Accordingly, the additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B, This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional limitations, which include at least a processor, memory communicatively connected to the processor, receiving an image of a physical form, receive conditions data from a conditions database, and transmit the directed process to a user device for display, do not provide significantly more than the exception because they utilize common processing capabilities without introducing a new technical solution. These generic computer components and data inputs/outputs do not describe a specific, non-generic solution to a technical problem but instead rely on standard computer functions to execute the abstract concept. Consequently, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception, and therefore is not patent eligible.
Claim 2 recites “wherein generating the directed process comprises segmenting the user goal into a plurality of sub-goals, wherein each of the plurality of sub-goals represents a simplified goal aligned with progressing toward the user goal’ This claim includes break down the user goal into smaller parts, where each part is a simplified step toward the main target. It likes splitting one big project into several tiny tasks to make them easier to finish. The claim simply describes a planning process without improving how the technology performs or solving a technical problem, they do not add enough unique weight to save the claim from being directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 3 recites “wherein generating the directed process comprises determining at least one waypoint within the directed process, wherein the waypoint comprises a condition indicative of partial achievement necessary for execution of remaining steps in the directed process” This claim includes a step where the system finds specific checkpoints within the plan that show partial progress toward the main goal. This limitation does not change the fundamental nature of the claim into a concrete technical solution.
Claim 4 recites “wherein determining the at least a user goal comprises: generating a goals list comprising the at least a user goal; determining feasibility of the at least a user goal as a function of a number of steps required to accomplish the at least a user goal; and ranking each user goal in the goals list based on the feasibility” This claim likes writing down several chores and ranking them from easiest to hardest before starting. This sorting method is a mental process of organizing data rather than a technical improvement to the system itself.
Claim 5 recites “wherein determining the at least a user goal comprises: generating a prompt requesting the at least a user goal from a user; and receive a response as a function of the prompt using a chatbot from the user.” This claim includes how the goal is created by asking a user for information through a chatbot. While this uses an interactive tool, using a chat interface here does not improve the technology behind the goal-setting idea.
Claim 6 recites “wherein determining the at least a user goal comprises: generating a transcribed text as a function of the response in an audio form using an automatic speech recognition process; extracting keywords from the transcribed text; and mapping the keywords to structured attributes representing the at least a user goal.” This claim includes steps that turn voice sounds into text and then pick out important words from that text to define the goal. It is like listening to a recording and typing out what was said, then circling the main keywords in bold. Merely performing these steps without detailing a unique or improved technical approach does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim 7 recites “wherein determining the at least a user goal comprises determining the at least a user goal as a function of a goal setting machine learning model that has been trained with a goals training set comprising prior iterations of the goal setting machine learning model” This claim is similar to using a program that gets better at predictions by looking at history. The claim relies on generic mathematical concepts and does not show a specific technical solution to a computing problem, it does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea of managing goals with a trained model.
Claim 8 recites “wherein transmitting the directed process comprises generating a graphical user interface comprising a window having one or more tabs, wherein the one or more tabs comprises: a goals tab configured to display the at least a user goal; an obstacles tab configured to display the at least an obstacle datum; and a strategy tab configured to display the directed process.” The claim adds details about how the results are shown on a screen using separate tabs for different types of information. Since the addition only links the abstract idea to a specific display environment without improving technology, it fails to integrate the concept into a practical application.
Claim 9 recites “wherein generating the graphical user interface comprises: detecting a user input within the graphical user interface; and updating the display based on the user input by rendering a new window or prompting a user for additional information”. This claim further explains that when a person interacts with the screen, the display changes to show new windows or ask for more info. It is like pressing a button on a screen that immediately clears the page and shows a new one. The claim does not provide an inventive concept beyond what is already described in the base claim.
Claim 10 recites “wherein generating the graphical user interface comprises displaying a notification window, prompting for required information when a field for the user input is left blank” This claim adds a rule where the screen shows a pop-up warning if the user forgets to type something in a box. Enforcing input rules does not improve the computer's technical performance or solve a new technical challenge.
Claim 11-20 are similar to claim 1-10. The claims are rejected based on the same reasons.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 6: “… The apparatus of claim 5, wherein determining the at least a user goal comprises: generating a transcribed text as a function of the response in an audio form using an automatic speech recognition process; extracting keywords from the transcribed text; and mapping the keywords to structured attributes representing the at least a user goal…” The original specification 18/142,656 does not support claim 6. Applicant is requested to point out the support of claim 6 in the original specification 18/142,656.
Claim 16 is similar to claim 6. The claim is rejected for the same reason.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7, 11-14, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adams (U.S. Patent 11599592 B1), in view of Donnell (U.S. Pub 2024/0037428 A1), in view of Gilley (U.S. Pub 2008/0076637 A1).
Claim 1
Adams discloses an apparatus for generating a segmented directed process based on obstacle data, the apparatus comprising (fig. 9):
at least a processor (fig. 9, processor 9); and
a memory communicatively connected to the at least a processor, wherein the memory contains instructions that configure the at least a processor to (fig. 9, memory 924):
generate a user profile (col 6, line 10-23, “… generate goal datum 120 from survey data 136... “survey data” is an element of data that is generated from a series of answers to questions by the user. The survey data 136 may include responses to a user survey given to a user…” col 5, line 7-8, “… receive a goal datum 120 related to a user… survey data 136 may be used to generate goal datum 120 or determine a user goal 108… ” col 5, line 23-27, “… Examples of goal datum 108 may include information about the user’s pecuniary literacy, pecuniary history, name, address, occupation, educational history, overall health history, musical aptitude, and the like…” <examiner note: goal datum is considered as user profile>);
determine at least a user goal as a function of the user profile (col 5, line 22-23, “… Goal datum 120 may be used to determine a user goal 108 for the user…” <examiner note: user goal is derived from goal datum/user profile>);
receive conditions data from a conditions database (col 4, line 59-67, “… Inputs to the machine learning model may include an example of user goals 108, goal datum 120, survey data 136, behavioral parameters 124, action parameters, and the like. This data may be received from a database, such as goal database 300. Previous user goals 108, previous goal data 120, previous waypoints 116, and previous goal paths 112 may come from the current user or users similarly situated to the users by user interest, pecuniary status, and/or aptitude for task completion…” <examiner note: data 108, 120, 136, 124 and action parameters are considered as conditions data because the goal machine learning model 132 correlates the input data (e.g., data 108, 120, 136, 124 and action parameters) to user goal 108>);
identify at least an obstacle datum (action parameter) as a function of the user goal and the conditions data (col 5, line 67 thru col 6, line 1-8, “… An action parameter may be calculated as a function of a user goal 108, survey data 136, and behavioral parameters 124. In a non-limiting example, an action parameter input an element of survey data 136 stating that the user has been unsuccessful in her last three user goals 108. The action parameter may then predict the user will continue to fail until user take steps to remediate. An action parameter may be generated using a machine learning model or fuzzy set…” <examiner note: action parameter considered as obstacle datum because it has negative effect on user goal. The action parameter is based on the user goal 108 and condition data such as survey data and behavior parameter data...”);
generate a directed process as a function of the user goal and the obstacle datum (col 6, line 39-43, “… Inputs to the to the goal classifier 128 may include a plurality of user goals 108, Goal datum 120, survey data 136, behavioral parameters 124, action parameters, and the like. The output to the classifier 128 may be a goal 180 that is specific to the given user…” col 4, line 15-17, “… generate a goal path 112 for the user… a “goal path” is a series of one or more steps to achieve a user goal 108…”); and
transmit the directed process to a user device for display (col 10, line 37-39, “… user goal 108, goal path 112, and waypoints 116 may be displayed).
However, Adams does not explicitly disclose
wherein generating the user profile comprises: receiving an image of a physical form containing handwritten text; extracting glyph features from the handwritten text using a feature extraction process; generating machine-encoded text corresponding to the handwritten text as a function of the glyph features; and generating the user profile as a function of the machine-encoded text;
wherein determining the at least a user goal comprises: determining whether the at least a user goal can be achieved as a function of the user profile; and generating a modified goal when the at least a user goal cannot be achieved
Donnell discloses wherein generating the user profile comprises: receiving an image of a physical form containing handwritten text ([0038], “… optical character recognition may be used to parse user goal data 116. In some cases, user goal data 116 may be in the form of written….”); extracting glyph features from the handwritten text using a feature extraction process ([0039], “… intelligent character recognition (ICR) may recognize written text one glyph or character at a time…” [0043], “… an OCR process may include a feature extraction process… feature extraction may decompose a glyph into at least a feature…”); generating machine-encoded text corresponding to the handwritten text as a function of the glyph features ([0039], “… optical character recognition or optical character reader (OCR) includes automatic conversion of images of written (e.g., typed, handwritten or printed text) into machine-encoded text…”); and generating the user profile as a function of the machine-encoded text ([0020], “… “Iser goal data” as used herein, is data relating to a user’s goals…” <examiner note: user goal is considered as user profile>)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include OCR that includes automatic conversion of images of written into machine coded text as disclosed by Donnell into Adams so that when user provides his or her information in written format, the OCR disclosed by Donnell transform the written format into machine-encoded text to generate user profile in digital format.
Gilley discloses wherein determining the at least a user goal comprises: determining whether the at least a user goal can be achieved as a function of the user profile; and generating a modified goal when the at least a user goal cannot be achieved ([0075] In step 112, the lifestyle companion system can dynamically adapt the user's short-term or long-term goals… For example, if the collected data (e.g., sensor data) indicates that the user will not reach a target performance metric based on his performance during an individual workout (e.g., the number of calories burned), the lifestyle companion system can temporarily reduce the target performance metric to a level that is more attainable during the workout in order to maintain the user's motivation. If the collected data indicates that the user will not reach his fitness goals based on his performance over multiple workouts, the lifestyle companion system can adjust the user's long-term goals to a level that may be more attainable for the user based on his past performance. Thus, a user's goals can be adapted either immediately or over time. In one embodiment of the present invention, a user's goals can be stored as goal data in the user's profile and the present invention can adapt the user's goals by adjusting the goal data…”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to the lifestyle companion system as disclosed by Gilley into Adams because a user's short-term and/or long-term goals and activities can be dynamically adapted in response to data collected about the user by the lifestyle companion system. Further, the lifestyle companion system provides the user with progress reports based on the goals expressed by the user in the user interview and the data collected about the user's activities.
Claim 2
Claim 1 is included, Adams discloses wherein generating the directed process comprises segmenting the user goal into a plurality of sub-goals, wherein each of the plurality of sub-goals represents a simplified goal aligned with progressing toward the user goal (col 4, line 14-24, “… FIG. 1… generate a goal path 112 for the user… A goal path 112 may be a user goal 108 broken down into a series of sub-goals. In some embodiments, the sub-goals may be smaller or more simple goals used to progress the user towards user goal 108…”)
Claim 3
Claim 1 is included, Adams discloses wherein generating the directed process comprises determining at least one waypoint within the directed process, wherein the waypoint comprises a condition indicative of partial achievement necessary for execution of remaining steps in the directed process (col 4, line 14-44, “… a “goal path” is a series of one or more steps to achieve a user goal 108… A step may comprise a task that a user must complete in to achieve a user goal 108. Once a user has achieved a plurality of steps and subs steps the user may achieve a waypoint 116. In embodiments, a goal path 112 may be comprised of a set of waypoints 116. As used in the current disclosure, a “waypoint” is a milestone for accomplishing the user goal 108. A non-limiting example of a waypoint 116 may be saving 20% of the total cost of a home for a down payment, in reference to the above example. As used in the current disclosure, a “milestone” is an event marking a significant change or progress for the user achieving his or her user goal 108…”)
Claim 4
Claim 1 is included, Adams discloses wherein determining the at least a user goal comprises: generating a goals list comprising the at least a user goal; determining feasibility of the at least a user goal as a function of a number of steps required to accomplish the at least a user goal; and ranking each user goal in the goals list based on the feasibility (col 8, line 46- 62, “… FIG. 1, processor 104 may be configured to use goal classifier 128 to classify, as a function of goal ranking, the user goal data 120 to a user goal 108. For example, processor 104 may take inputs of the user goals 108 and sort into categories, selectable by user, such as: most achievable, least achievable, pecuniary goals, goals, educational goals, health goals, musical goals, and the like, and the like. In some embodiments, processor 104 may be configured to produce classification output results including the classified goal ranking to user goals 108 in a selectable format by user, including at least the ranked user goals 108 with the success score displayed by each user goal 108. For example, user may select to output classified goal ranking to user goals 108 in a pie chart, wherein the goal ranking to user goals 108 are divided, and color coded in selectable classification bins, showing the number of user goals 108 that fall into a classification…”)
Claim 7
Claim 1 is included, Adams further discloses wherein determining the at least a user goal comprises determining the at least a user goal as a function of a goal setting machine learning model that has been trained with a goals training set comprising prior iterations of the goal setting machine learning model (col 4, line 45-50, " FIG. 1, processor 104 may be configured to select a user goal 108 for the user. As used in the current disclosure, "Goal selection" the selection of one or more user goals 108 of the plurality of goals for the user to purse. In an embodiment, a goal selection may be generated using a goal machine learning model… ")
Claims 11-14 and 17 are similar to claim 1-4 and 7. The claims are rejected based on the same reasons.
Claim(s) 5-6 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adams (U.S. Patent 11599592 B1), in view of Donnell (U.S. Pub 2024/0037428 A1), in view of Gilley (U.S. Pub 2008/0076637 A1), as applied to claim 1 and 11 respectively, and further in view of McClure (U.S. Pub 2023/0000448 A1)
Claim 5
Claim 1 is included, however, Adams does not explicitly disclose wherein determining the at least a user goal comprises: generating a prompt requesting the at least a user goal from a user; and receive a response as a function of the prompt using a chatbot from the user.
McClure discloses determining the at least a user goal ([0173], “… Within the goal module, the user can be prompted with goals that the user can select and complete…”) comprises: generating a prompt requesting the at least a user goal from a user ([0192], “… FIG. 27… includes a prompt to the user to begin the initial assessment with the text “Let's set some goals together that are just right for you…”); and receive a response as a function of the prompt using a chatbot from the user ([0060], “… a user can access the user interface 120… include an interactive interface 122… the interactive interface 122 is a chatbot…” [0194], “… After the user answers questions from the goal module, a list of recommended goals that can be selected by the user are displayed on a screen 6450, as shown in FIG. 32…”)
Claim 6
Claim 5 is included, McClure discloses wherein determining the at least a user goal comprises ([0063], “… the natural language processor 132 and the response generator 134 allow a user to have an interactive chat (written or spoken) with the IDM system 100…” [0173], “… Within the goal module, the user can be prompted with goals that the user can select and complete…”): generating a transcribed text as a function of the response in an audio form using an automatic speech recognition process ([0236], “… the screen 8600 includes a prompt asking the user, “Hey, Daniel, how have you been?”…” [0238], “… Selecting the voice data entry by an 8602 may allow the user to speak the data that the user wishes to enter…” [0239], “… FIG. 24, as the user enters data through the logging prompts the logging module transcribes the user spoken data onto the screen…”); extracting keywords from the transcribed text ([0240] FIG. 25… shown after data has been entered… by typing, or vocally by speaking… The screen 9000 presents the user with the data so that the user can verify and save the data…” <examiner note: keywords: blood sugar, 105, 12); and mapping the keywords to structured attributes representing the at least a user goal ([0173], “… An IDM system can include a goal module… Within the goal module, the user can be prompted with goals that the user can select and complete. In some embodiments, a list of categories of goals, a list of goals, and/or a level of difficulty of goals can be provided to the user to facilitate selection of a goal for completion. In some embodiments, one or more goals may be recommended to the user based on an initial assessment of the user. An initial assessment may be performed based on data previously collected from the user, such as fitness data, health data, or treatment adherence data. During the initial assessment, the IDM system may alternatively or additionally request information from the user for the determination of one or more initial goals, such as for example, areas of interest, strengths, and weaknesses of the user. Following the initial assessment, one or more categories of goals, goals, and/or levels of difficulty of goals can be recommended to the user…”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include an interactive engine including a natural language processor that can parse and transcribe user’s interactions as disclosed by McClure into Adams to allow the system to display content items to a user based on selected goals from the user includes performing an initial assessment of a user. Also the system recommends a plurality of goals based on the initial assessment, receives a selection of a goal from the user, receiving goal tracking information indicative of progress toward the selected goal, selects one or more content items from the content database based on at least one of the selected goal and the goal tracking information, and displays the selected one or more content items.
Claim 15-16 are similar to claim 5 and 6. The claims are rejected based on the same reasons.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAU HAI HOANG whose telephone number is (571)270-5894. The examiner can normally be reached 1st biwk: Mon-Thurs 7:00 AM-5:00 PM; 2nd biwk: Mon-Thurs: 7:00 am-5:00pm, Fri: 7:00 am - 4:00pm.
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, Boris Gorney can be reached at 571-270-5626. 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.
HAU HAI. HOANG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2154
/HAU H HOANG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2154
Prosecution Insights