Systems and methods for improved social media

All actions (3)

Non-Final Office Action after RCELatest

Mar 9, 2026 · §103, §112

Non-Final Office Action after RCE — all claims 1-20 rejected under §103 obviousness and §112(a) written description

The applicant has three months (extendable to six) to respond. An attorney would typically analyze whether the prior art combinations actually teach all claim elements, argue that the specification does support the claims as written, and potentially amend claims to distinguish over the references or to align with the original disclosure. An attorney typically handles this; if you'd like patentreply.ai to draft a response, click 'Get this drafted'.

Rejection groups (3)

§ 103Obviousnessclaims 1-12, 14-20
Claim(s) 1-12 and 14-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zack et al, US Pat. No. 10,032,145, herein referred to as “Zack” in view of Zayets-Volshin et al, US Pub. No. 2018/0136612, herein referred to as “Zayets-Volshin”, further in view of Curry et al., US Pub. No. 2015/0040009, herein referred to as “Curry”.
Non-Final Office Action after RCE mailed Mar 9, 2026
Examiner theory
No. 10,032,145, herein referred to as “Zack” in view of Zayets-Volshin et al, US Pub. No. 2018/0136612, herein referred to as “Zayets-Volshin”, further in view of Curry et al., US Pub. No. 2015/0040009, herein referred to as “Curry”.
§ 103Obviousnessclaims 13
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zack, Zayets-Volshin and Curry further in view of Steele, US Pub. No. 2015/0287093, herein referred to as “Steele”.
Non-Final Office Action after RCE mailed Mar 9, 2026
Examiner theory
No. 2015/0287093, herein referred to as “Steele”.
§ 112(a)Written descriptionclaims 1-20
Claims 1-20 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.
Non-Final Office Action after RCE mailed Mar 9, 2026
Examiner theory
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 pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The independent claims 1, 8, and 16 recite the newly amended limitation “…automatically adjusting the soundbar to a position on the screen of the user device to optimize viewing of the data currently shown…” however there is no discussion, throughout the entirety of the specification and drawings, of automatically adjusting the soundbar to optimize viewing of the data. For example, the specification discusses the user selecting and moving the soundbar around the screen, ¶[0049] of the S

Prior art consulted (4)

Identifier	Type	Name or author	Link
US10032145	us patent	Zack et al.	View ↗
US20180136612	patent publication	Zayets-Volshin et al.	View ↗
US20150040009	patent publication	Curry et al.	View ↗
US20150287093	patent publication	Steele	View ↗

Procedural framework (1)

MPEP§ 2143

Final Office Action

Mar 24, 2025 · §101, §103

Final Office Action — all claims 1-20 rejected under §101 abstract idea and §103 obviousness

The applicant typically has three months (extendable to six with fees) to respond. Common options include filing an amendment with arguments, requesting an examiner interview to narrow the issues, filing a Request for Continued Examination (RCE) to reopen prosecution, or appealing to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. An attorney typically handles this; if you'd like patentreply.ai to draft a response, click 'Get this drafted'.

Rejection groups (3)

§ 101Abstract ideaclaims 1-20
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Final Office Action mailed Mar 24, 2025
Examiner theory
Under Step 1 of the patent eligibility analysis, it must first be determined whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). Applying Step 1 to the claims it is determined that: claims 1-15 are directed to a process; and claims 16-20 are directed to a machine. Therefore, we proceed to Step 2. Independent Claim 1 Under Step 2A Prong 1 of the patent eligibility analysis, it must be determined whether the claims recite an abstract idea that falls within one or more designated categories or “buckets” of patent ineligible subject matter (i.e., organizing human activity, mathematical concepts, and mental processes) that amount to a judicial exception to patentability. Independent claim 1 r

Non-Final Office Action

Nov 25, 2024 · §101, §103, §112

Non-Final Office Action — all claims rejected under §101 abstract idea, §103 obviousness, and §112 indefiniteness

This is a non-final rejection, so the applicant has three months from November 25, 2024 (extendable to six months with fees) to respond. A response typically involves arguing against the rejections, amending claims to distinguish the prior art or add significantly more to overcome §101, and correcting the §112 defects in claim 6. Attorneys often request examiner interviews to narrow issues before filing a written response. An attorney typically handles this; if you'd like patentreply.ai to draft a response, click 'Get this drafted'.

Rejection groups (5)

§ 101Abstract ideaclaims 1-20
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Non-Final Office Action mailed Nov 25, 2024
Examiner theory
Under Step 1 of the patent eligibility analysis, it must first be determined whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). Applying Step 1 to the claims it is determined that: claims 1-15 are directed to a process; and claims 16-20 are directed to a machine. Therefore, we proceed to Step 2. Independent Claim 1 Under Step 2A Prong 1 of the patent eligibility analysis, it must be determined whether the claims recite an abstract idea that falls within one or more designated categories or “buckets” of patent ineligible subject matter (i.e., organizing human activity, mathematical concepts, and mental processes) that amount to a judicial exception to patentability. Independent claim 1 r

The latest Office Action

Claim status

Open 18/082,397 as a matter in your AI.

Prosecution history

All actions (3)

Non-Final Office Action after RCELatest

Rejection groups (3)

Prior art consulted (4)

Final Office Action

Rejection groups (3)

Non-Final Office Action

Rejection groups (5)

Prior art consulted (4)

Prior art consulted (3)