Application 15/061,308
PatentedArt unit 2884·Examiner Valentiner, Jeremy Scott·Filed Mar 4, 2016·Status since Oct 18, 2017
Inventor Brandt Christopher Pein et al.
Mailed Jul 3, 2017 · Notice of Allowance
No active rejections were extracted from this action. See the structured detail below.
The prosecution record for your AI
Application 15/061,308
Connect PatentReply to Claude, ChatGPT, Cursor, or another supported AI workspace and it compiles this application: the 2 Office Actions on file, every claim version, the responses, and the cited references, with each answer pointing back to the filed passage.
One public application a month is free. The first compile takes a few minutes.
Strategy and filing changes require your approval.
Data from the USPTO Open Data Portal · OAIS v0.1.0 · Request removal
Jul 3, 2017
Mar 13, 2017 · §103, §112
§ 103Obviousnessclaims 1, 5, 9-10, 13-16
Claims 1, 5, 9-10, and 13-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bergeron (US Pub. 2013/0341529) and Rapaport (US Pub. 2013/0134309).
Non-Final Office Action mailed Mar 13, 2017
§ 103Obviousnessclaims 2-4, 6-8
Claims 2-4 and 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bergeron (US Pub. 2013/0341529) and Rapaport (US Pub. 2013/0134309) as applied to claims 1 and 5, respectively, above, and further in view of Hwang et al. (US Pub. 2014/0061469).
Non-Final Office Action mailed Mar 13, 2017
§ 103Obviousnessclaims 11-12
Claims 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bergeron (US Pub. 2013/0341529) and Rapaport (US Pub. 2013/0134309) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Morita et al. (US Pub. 2014/0008642).
Non-Final Office Action mailed Mar 13, 2017
§ 103Obviousnessclaims 17
Claim 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bergeron (US Pub. 2013/0341529) and Rapaport (US Pub. 2013/0134309) as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Paeschke et al. (WO 2014/067922 published 08 May 2014 corresponding to US Pub. 2015/0294177 referred to below for convenience).
Non-Final Office Action mailed Mar 13, 2017
§ 103Obviousnessclaims 19-22, 24
Claims 19-22 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bergeron (US Pub. 2013/0341529) and Szeles et al. (US Pub. 2010/0078559).
Non-Final Office Action mailed Mar 13, 2017
§ 103Obviousnessclaims 23, 27
Claims 23 and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bergeron (US Pub. 2013/0341529) and Szeles et al. (US Pub. 2010/0078559) as applied to claim 20 above, and further in view of Hwang et al. (US Pub. 2014/0061469).
Non-Final Office Action mailed Mar 13, 2017
§ 103Obviousnessclaims 25
Claim 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bergeron (US Pub. 2013/0341529) and Szeles et al. (US Pub. 2010/0078559) as applied to claim 20 above, and further in view of Rapaport (US Pub. 2013/0134309).
Non-Final Office Action mailed Mar 13, 2017
§ 103Obviousnessclaims 28
Claim 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bergeron (US Pub. 2013/0341529) and Szeles et al. (US Pub. 2010/0078559) as applied to claim 20 above, and further in view of Paeschke et al. (WO 2014/067922 published 08 May 2014 corresponding to US Pub. 2015/0294177 referred to below for convenience).
Non-Final Office Action mailed Mar 13, 2017
§ 112(b)Indefinitenessclaims 1-17, 19-25, 27-28
Claims 1-17, 19-25, and 27-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Non-Final Office Action mailed Mar 13, 2017
MPEP§ 2173.05(p)
Case lawEx Parte Lyell·IPXL Holdings v. Amazon·In Re Katz Interactive Call Processing
| WO2014067922 |
| foreign patent |
| Paeschke et al. |
| View ↗ |
| US20150294177 | patent publication | — | View ↗ |
| US20100078559 | patent publication | Szeles et al. | View ↗ |