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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-5, 7-18 and 20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/16/2026 has been considered. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Form PTO-1449 is signed and attached hereto.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-5, 7-18, and 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites a judicial exception, is directed to that judicial exception, an abstract idea, as it has not been integrated into practical application and the claims further do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. Examiner has evaluated the claims under the framework provided in the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance published in the Federal Register 01/07/2019 and has provided such analysis below.
Step 1: Claims 1-5, 7-13 are directed to a method and falls within the statutory category of processes; and Claims 14-18 and 20 are directed to a voice personal assistant device and falls within the statutory category of machines. Therefore, “Are the claims to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?” Yes.
In order to evaluate the Step 2A inquiry “Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea?” we must determine, at Step 2A Prong 1, whether the claim recites a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea and further whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2A Prong 1:
Claims 1 and 14: The limitations of “identifying, based on a pre-defined criteria, a type of the at least one current task and a priority-level of the at least one current task from the at least one current task; generating […] a correlation of one or more of a user-location, a device-usage history pertaining to the user, a list of current active devices with respect to the user, and a user-preference within the IoT environment; identifying at least one device for communicating a task execution status based on the correlation and based on at least one of the type of the at least one current task and the priority- level of the at least one current task; wherein the predefined time-duration is determined based on the priority-level of the at least one current task”, and similar limitations of claim 14, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can think and observe, judge and evaluate criteria in order to mental determine a type and a priority of a task. Further, a person can mentally create a correlation that associates information associated with a user and devices including user-location, device-usage history, active devices, and user preferences as this is merely evaluating this information and determining/mentally evaluating information that corresponds to one another. Furhter, a person can mentally evaluate which device should be used for communicating task execution status based on the mentally created correlation as this is can be a mental evaluation of which device is best suited for the task based on evaluation of the correlation, type of the task, and priority of the task. Furthermore, a person can think and observe, judge and evaluate a priority or urgency of task in order to mentally determine a time-duration.
Therefore, Yes, claims 1 and 14 recite judicial exceptions.
The claims have been identified to recite judicial exceptions, Step 2A Prong 2 will evaluate whether the claims are directed to the judicial exception.
Step 2A Prong 2:
Claims 1 and 14: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the following additional elements – “based on an AI-model” (1 and 14) and “memory storing instructions; and at least one processor coupled to the memory, wherein the instructions, which when executed by the at least one processor, cause the VPA device to” (14) which are merely recitations of generic computing components and functions being used as a tool to apply the abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. Further, claim 1 recites the following additional elements – “for executing tasks by a voice personal assistant (VPA) device in an Internet of Things (IoT) environment using artificial-intelligence (Al) techniques”, and similarly in claim 14, which is merely a recitation of a field of use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. Further, claim 1 recites the following additional elements – “receiving at least one current task related to a user” and “detecting a non-acknowledgement from the user in respect of the task execution status output by the first device in the identified at least one device for a predefined time- duration after providing the task-execution status on the first device, wherein the non-acknowledgement comprises an absence of the user interaction with the first device”, and similarly in claim 14, which is merely a recitation of insignificant extra-solution data gathering activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. Further, claim 1 recites the following additional elements – “providing the task execution status to and on a first device in the identified at least one device to cause the first device to await a user interaction with the task execution status output by the first device” and “providing the task execution status to and on a second device in the identified at least one device based on detecting the non-acknowledgement from the user for the predefined time-duration after providing the task-execution status on the first device”, and similarly in claim 14, which is merely a recitation of insignificant extra-solution data transmission activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application.
Therefore, “Do the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Claims 1 and 14 are directed to an abstract idea.
After having evaluating the inquires set forth in Steps 2A Prong 1 and 2, it has been concluded that the claim 1 not only recites a judicial exception but that the claim is directed to the judicial exception as the judicial exception has not been integrated into practical application.
Step 2B:
Claims 1 and 14: The claims do not include additional elements, alone or in combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than generic computing components being used as a tool to apply the abstract idea, field of use/technological environment, and insignificant extra-solution data gathering/transmission activity which do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Further, the insignificant extra-solution data gathering/transmission activity is Well-Understood, Routine, and Conventional (WURC), see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network”
Therefore, “Do the claims recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No, these additional elements, alone or in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Having concluded analysis within the provided framework, Claims 1 and 14 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
With regard to claim 2, recites additional abstract mental processes and additional elements “classifying the at least one task using the pre-defined criteria into at least one of a type of the at least one task and a priority-level of the at least one task” which is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can think and observe, judge and evaluate criteria in order to mentally classify at least on task. Further, the additional elements “receiving, in a historical past, at least one task from the user; and creating a repository of the at least one classified task to identify the at least one current task”, which is merely a recitation of insignificant extra-solution data gathering activity and data storage activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application nor amount to significantly more. Further, the insignificant extra-solution data gathering/transmission activity is Well-Understood, Routine, and Conventional (WURC), see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II). “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network … iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory”
With regard to claims 3, recites additional abstract mental processes “wherein the type of the at least one current task is defined by one or more of an instant task, a continuous task, and an overlapping task”, which is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can think and observe, judge and evaluate tasks in order to mentally determine a type of a task as either an instant task, a continuous task or overlapping task. The claim does not recite additional elements that integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more.
With regard to claims 4, recites additional elements “wherein the time-duration is a short time duration with one or more of a critical or a high level priority; a mid-size time duration with a high level priority; and a large time duration with a normal level priority” which is merely a recitation of insignificant extra-solution data gathering activity and data storage activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application nor amount to significantly more. Further, the insignificant extra-solution data gathering/transmission activity is Well-Understood, Routine, and Conventional (WURC), see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II). “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network … iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory”
With regard to claims 5, recites additional abstract mental processes “wherein the at least one device is further identified based on one or more parameters including: the user-location, the device-usage history, a device current operational status, and the user-preference”, which is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can think and observe, judge and evaluate parameters and mentally determine or identify a user device. The claim does not recite additional elements that integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more.
With regard to claim 7, recites additional abstract mental processes “wherein the correlation of the device-usage history is based on computation of a device preference through capturing in real-time a user interaction and an activity with respect to the at least one device” , which is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can mentally create a correlation based on computation of a device preference through capturing a user interaction and an activity with respect to the at least one device as this is merely evaluating this information and determining/mentally evaluating information that corresponds to one another. The claim does not recite additional elements that integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more.
With regard to claim 8, recites the additional abstract mental processes and additional elements “the correlation of one or more of includes the user-location and the list of the current active devices with respect to the user” which is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can mentally create a correlation of one or more of a user-location and the list of the current active devices with respect to the user as this is merely evaluating this information and determining/mentally evaluating information that corresponds to one another. The claim further recites the additional elements “the user-preference comprises capturing one or more of: a user preference submitted with respect to a particular device; a current user activity detection through device-usage; and a user preference computed towards a particular device computed post task completion”, which is merely a recitation of insignificant extra-solution data gathering activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application nor provide significantly more. Further, the insignificant extra-solution of data gathering activity is Well-Understood, Routine, and Conventional (WURC), see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II). “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network e.g., using the Internet to gather data”
With regards to claim 9, recites additional abstract mental processes and additional elements “ascertaining a task-termination flag in an active state and based thereupon determining a pendency of acknowledgment from the user”, which as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can observe, evaluate and ascertain a termination flag in active state and mentally determine a pendency of acknowledgment from a user. Further, the additional elements of “setting the task-termination flag as inactive upon one or more of: a receipt of an acknowledgement from the user; an elapse of a dynamically-configured time; and an occurrence of a number of attempts of communication of the task execution status”, “performing communication for the task execution status as a task notification based upon ascertaining the active state, wherein the communication is enabled through selecting a communication mode; repeating the communication for the task execution status periodically, wherein repeated communication being resorted through a different mode of the communication” which is merely a recitation of insignificant extra-solution data storage/data transmission activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application nor provide significantly more. Further, the insignificant extra-solution data gathering/transmission activity is Well-Understood, Routine, and Conventional (WURC), see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II). “The courts have recognized the following computer
functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra- solution activity. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network … iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory”
With regards to claim 10, recites the additional abstract mental processes “computing a period of repetition of the communication based on the priority-level of the at least one current task, a nature of the at least one current task and the at least one device employed for communicating the at least one current task, the period representing a time of awaiting acknowledgement from the user in response to the communication for the task execution status to the user”, which is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can think and observe, judge and evaluate criteria including priority-level of current task, a nature of current task and the device, the period representing a time of awaiting, in order to mentally compute a period of repetition.
With regards to claim 11, recites the additional abstract mental processes and additional elements “awaiting the acknowledgement from the user until an elapse of the period” is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can think and observe, judge and evaluate criteria in order to mentally determine that a no acknowledgement after a period of time elapses. The additional elements “repeating the communication for the task execution status by resorting to a different mode of the communication in case of no acknowledgement from the user; and enabling the task-termination flag as inactive to discontinue further communication upon receipt of the acknowledgement” which is merely a recitation of insignificant extra-solution data transmission/data storage activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application nor amount to significantly more. Further, the insignificant extra-solution data gathering/transmission activity is Well-Understood, Routine, and Conventional (WURC), see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II). “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network … iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory”
With regards to claim 12, recites the additional abstract mental processes “identifying a list of modes for communicating a task execution status based on one or more of the correlation based on at least one of the type of the at least one current task or the priority level of the at least one current task, wherein the first device and the second device are associated with one or more modes within the list of modes” is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can think and observe, judge and evaluate criteria including task type, priority level in order to mentally determine list of modes for communicating the task.
With regards to claim 13, recites the additional elements “receiving a user acknowledgement of the task execution status through one or more of a voice response, a gesture, and a UI interaction” which is merely a recitation of insignificant extra-solution data gathering activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application nor provide significantly more. Further, the insignificant extra-solution data gathering activity is Well-Understood, Routine, and Conventional (WURC), see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II). “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network”
Therefore, Claims 1-5, 7-18, and 20 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. $101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 4 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) 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.
The following claim languages are not clearly understood and indefinite:
As per claim 4, lines 3-5, recites “a short time duration with one or more of a critical or a high level priority; a mid-size time duration with a high-level priority; and a large time duration with a normal level priority” However, it uncertain as whose priority the terms “critical or a high level priority”, “a high level priority” and “normal level priority” refer to (e.g. the priority of the task? priority of a user? Or else). Further, the terms ”short”, “mid-size” and “large” in this claim are relative terms which renders the claim indefinite. The term ”short”, “mid-size” and “large” are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Accordingly, it is uncertain as to what constitutes the limitations “a short time duration”, “a mid-size time duration” and “large time duration”.
As per claim 17, recites similar limitations as claim 4. Thus, it is rejected as having the same issues identified for claim 4 above.
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 12-15 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dotan-Cohen et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 20160249319 A1, hereinafter Dotan) in view of Deeter et al. (U.S. Patent No. 20140149538 A1).
Dotan was cited in a previous office action.
As per claim 1, Dotan teaches the invention substantially as claimed including a method for executing tasks by a voice personal assistant (VPA) device in an Internet of Things (loT) environment using artificial-intelligence (AD) techniques (par. 0031 the functions [tasks] performed by components of system 200 are associated with one or more personal assistant applications, services, or routines. In particular, such applications, services, or routines may operate on one or more user devices, servers, may be distributed across one or more user devices [IoT environment user devices] and servers; par. 0084 use statistics and machine learning techniques [which is an application of AI), the method comprising:
receiving at least one current task related to a user (par. 0016 embodiments may determine an event that is missed or otherwise unaddressed by a user; par. 0017 The term “event” may also refer to a reminder, task, announcement, or news item);
identifying, based on a pre-defined criteria, a type of the at least one current task (par. 0040 availability determiner 264 may use the response information to determine user capability levels needed to address particular types of events, such as that addressing a first type of event [task] … dependent on the user's access to a computing device [predefined criteria] … a second type of event [task] … dependent on the user's capability to make a phone call [predefined criteria]) and a priority-level of the at least one current task from the at least one current task (par. 0021 Notification content, including in some instances notification logic used for presenting a notification, may be generated based on the predicted availability and determined likely importance [priority] of the unaddressed event);
generating, based on an AI-model (par. 0084 some embodiments of events monitor 280 and notification engine 260 use statistics and machine learning techniques), a correlation of one or more of a user-location (par. 0020 For example, user data, such as location, time, online activity, calendar), a device-usage history pertaining to the user (par. 0033 user data may include data that is sensed or determined from one or more sensors … such as location information of mobile device(s), smartphone data … user-activity information (for example: app usage; online activity; searches; voice data such as automatic speech recognition; activity logs; communications data including calls, texts, instant messages, and emails; website posts; other user-data associated with events; etc.) including user activity that occurs over more than one user device, user history, session logs, application data, contacts data, calendar and schedule data, notification data, social-network data, news (including popular or trending items on search engines or social networks), a list of current active devices with respect to the user (par. 0020 one or more user devices associated with the user), and a user-preference within the IoT environment (par. 0060 user settings or preferences regarding the importance or urgency of addressing certain events, or events that are associated with certain variables, which may be explicitly specified by the user);
identifying at least one device for communicating a task execution status based on the correlation and based on at least one of the type of the at least one current task and the priority-level of the at least one current task (par. 0085 includes a presentation component 218 that is generally responsible for presenting notifications and related content to a user, based on the notification content determined by notification engine 260 … For example, in one embodiment, presentation component 218 manages the presentation of notification content to a user across multiple user devices associated with that user. Based on notification logic and user data, presentation component 218 may determine on which user device(s) a notification is presented; par. 0066 the availability, urgency, and/or importance may be used for determining logic and other parameters associated with providing notification content to a user, such as where or when to provide notification(s)),
providing the task execution status to and on a first device in the identified at least one device to cause the first device to await a user interaction with the task execution status output by the first device (par. 0086 presentation component 218 generates user interface features associated with a notification; par. 0100 Using notification content including the information described previously, a presentation component (such as presentation component 218) or a personal assistant application or service may generate and provide one or more notices to a user, such as notification 350. Example notification 350 may be provided to a user, if the user's availability indicates the user can interact with the user device; par. 0039 determining response information for the monitored events, including unaddressed events);
detecting a non-acknowledgement from the user in respect of the task execution status output by the first device in the identified at least one device for a predefined time-duration after providing the task-execution status on the first device … (par. 0134 where a user has not responded to a notification during the first timeframe [time-duration] and the corresponding unaddressed event is still pending and relevant (i.e. it hasn't expired), then a second timeframe may be determined. Similarly, where the user has asked to be reminded or notified again about an unaddressed event (such as described in connection to item 320d in FIG. 3), then a second timeframe may be determined (Alternatively, in some embodiments a second time of the one or more times determined in step 640 may be used for re-presenting the notification to the user), and wherein the predefined time-duration is determined based on the priority-level of the at least one current task (par. 0127 In some embodiments, the first time frame is determined based on an urgency or importance corresponding to the unaddressed event).
Although Dotan further teaches providing notification to different devices (par. 0125 cloud service may be utilized to perform method 500 so as to provide notification content to multiple services, which may be running on many different user devices).
Dotan does not expressly teach: providing the task execution status to and on a second device in the identified at least one device based on detecting the non-acknowledgement from the user for the predefined time-duration after providing the task-execution status on the first device; wherein the non-acknowledgement comprises an absence of the user interaction with the first device.
However, analogous prior art, Deeter teaches: providing the task execution status to and on a second device in the identified at least one device based on detecting the non-acknowledgement from the user for the predefined time-duration after providing the task-execution status on the first device; wherein the non-acknowledgement comprises an absence of the user interaction with the first device (par. 0003 The notification system identifies a plurality of user devices associated with the user that are eligible for receiving notifications. For example, a user device is eligible to receive a notification if a notification has not previously been transmitted to the user device within a threshold time. A user device is selected from the plurality of user devices eligible to receive the notification. For example, the notification system selects a user device based on recent user activity with various user devices and prior responses by the user to notifications transmitted to various user devices. A notification is provided to the selected user device, and the notification system waits an acknowledgement delay period to receive an acknowledgement of the notification from the selected user device. If the user device does not provide an acknowledgment by the expiration of the acknowledgement delay period, the notification system selects an additional user device from the plurality of user devices eligible for receiving notifications; par. 0022 User interactions received by the notification system 100).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the technique of determining whether a user device provides an acknowledgment by the expiration of the acknowledgement delay period and selecting an additional user device eligible for receiving notifications to provide notification of Deeter with the system and method of Dotan resulting in a system and method in which when a user device does not provide an acknowledgment by the expiration of the acknowledgement delay period, provides for selecting an additional user device eligible for receiving notifications, and send a notification of a task status/event using the selected device as in Deeter. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination for the purpose of allowing to more effectively identify the user device from which the user is most likely to interact with the notification (par. 0018).
As per claim 2, Dotan further teaches: receiving, in a historical past, at least one task from the user (par. 0016 determine an event [task] that is missed or otherwise unaddressed by a user; par. 0017 The term “event” may also refer to a reminder, task,); classifying the at least one task using the pre-defined criteria into at least one of a type of the at least one task and a priority-level of the at least one task; and creating a repository of the at least one classified task to identify the at least one current task (par. 0040 particular types of events, such as that addressing a first type of event [task] … dependent on the user's access to a computing device … a second type of event [task] … dependent on the user's capability to make a phone call [predefined criteria]. That is, events[tasks] are classified at least into a first and second type based on predefined criteria of user access to a computing device and user’s capability to make a phone call.; par. 0021 Notification content, including in some instances notification logic used for presenting a notification, may be generated based on the predicted availability and determined likely importance [priority] of the unaddressed event).
As per claim 4, Dotan further teaches: wherein the time-duration is defined by one or more of: a short time duration with one or more of a critical or a high level priority; a mid-size time duration with a high level priority; and a large time duration with a normal level priority (par. 0128 first timeframe corresponds to a span of time in which it is likely that the user would desire to be notified of the unaddressed event. For example, where contextual information indicates that a particular unaddressed event is urgent [high level priority], then the timeframe [time-duration] may be a shorter span or duration [short time duration]. The span of time may be a future time interval or may be a time interval starting at the present time and lasting until some point in the future).
As per claim 5, Dotan further teaches: wherein the at least one device is further identified based on one or more parameters including: the user-location, the device-usage history, a device current operational status, and the user-preference (par. 0085 Based on notification logic and user data, presentation component 218 may determine on which user device(s) a notification is presented; par. 0033 user data may include data that is sensed or determined from one or more sensors (referred to herein as sensor data), such as location information of mobile device(s), smartphone data (such as phone state, charging data, date/time, or other information derived from a smartphone), user-activity information … including user activity that occurs over more than one user device, user history).
As per claim 12, Dotan further teaches: identifying a list of modes for communicating a task execution status based on one or more of the correlation based on at least one of the type of the at least one current task or the priority-level of the at least one current task, wherein the first device and the second device are associated with one or more modes within the list of modes (par. 0054 event response analyzer 288 may be used for determining information about user response patterns, user-activities that may correspond to responding to an unaddressed event, how long a user engages in responding to the unaddressed event, modes of communication, or other information for determining user capabilities desired for addressing certain types of events, which may be used for determining user availability to respond to an unaddressed event; par. 0125 cloud system and/or cloud service may be utilized to perform method 500 so as to provide notification content to multiple services, which may be running on many different user devices).
As per claim 13, Dotan further teaches: receiving a user acknowledgement of the task execution status through one or more of a voice response, a gesture, and a UI interaction (par. 0056 Based on an affirmative response from the user (e.g., saying “yes” or touching a “yes” button on his mobile device); par. 0150 The I/O components 720 may provide a natural user interface (NUI) that processes air gestures, voice, or other physiological inputs generated by a user).
As per claim 14 it is a voice personal assistant device having similar limitations as claim 1. Thus, claim 14 is rejected for the same rationale as applied to claim 1. Dotan further teaches: a communication unit; and a processor coupled to the communication unit (Fig. 7, processors 714; par. 0151 Some embodiments of computing device 700 may include one or more radio(s) 724 (or similar wireless communication components).
As per claim 15 it is a voice personal assistant device having similar limitations as claim 2. Thus, claim 15 is rejected for the same rationale as applied to claim 2.
As per claim 18 it is a voice personal assistant device having similar limitations as claim 5. Thus, claim 18 is rejected for the same rationale as applied to claim 5.
Claims 3, 7-11, 16-17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being
unpatentable over Dotan in view of Deeter, and further in view of Flood et al. (U.S.
Pub. No. 20200103860 A1).
Flood was cited in a previous office action.
As per claim 3, Dotan further teaches: wherein the type of the at least one current task is defined by one or more of an instant task … (par. 0020 certain types of activities for addressing an unaddressed event (e.g., placing a call [instant task], responding to an email, browsing the web, etc.) may be predicted based on the determined user patterns and/or user data sensed from one or more user devices associated with the user).
Dotan and Deeter do not expressly disclose: wherein the type of the at least one current task is defined by one or more of … a continuous task, and an overlapping task.
However, analogous art, Flood teaches: wherein the type of the at least one current task is defined by one or more of … a continuous task, and an overlapping task (par. 00256 Example task types include, but not limited to, continuous tasks, periodic tasks, and event tasks).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of defining types of tasks including continuous tasks, periodic tasks, and event tasks of Flood with the system and method of Dotan and Deeter resulting in a system and method which provides for executing various types of tasks including continuous tasks. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination for the purpose of tuning the automation system's execution to the desired operation (par. 0026). Further, It would have provided identifying and effectively prioritizing such tasks at least based on whether the task is continuous, periodic or instant, in order to enhance the performance of some tasks over others.
As per claim 7, Dotan further teaches: wherein the correlation of the device-usage history is based on computation of a device preference through capturing in real-time a user-interaction and an activity with respect to the at least one device (par. 0060 user settings or preferences regarding the importance or urgency of addressing certain events, or events that are associated with certain variables, which may be explicitly specified by the user; par. 0033 par. 0033 user data may include data that is sensed or determined from one or more sensors … such as location information of mobile device(s), smartphone data … user-activity information (for example: app usage; online activity; searches; voice data such as automatic speech recognition; activity logs; communications data including calls, texts, instant messages, and emails; website posts; other user-data associated with events; etc.) including user activity that occurs over more than one user device, user history, session logs, application data, contacts data, calendar and schedule data, notification data, social-network data, news (including popular or trending items on search engines or social networks).
As per claim 8, Dotan further teaches: the correlation of one or more of includes the user-location and the list of the current active devices with respect to the user, and the user-preference comprises capturing one or more of: a user preference submitted with respect to a particular device; a current user activity detection through device-usage; and a user preference computed towards a particular device computed post task completion (par. 0033 user data may include data that is sensed or determined from one or more sensors (referred to herein as sensor data), such as location information of mobile device(s), smartphone data (such as phone state, charging data, date/time, or other information derived from a smartphone), user-activity information (for example: app usage; online activity; searches; voice data such as automatic speech recognition; activity logs; communications data including calls, texts, instant messages, and emails; website posts; other user-data associated with events; etc.) including user activity that occurs over more than one user device, user history, session logs, application data, contacts data, calendar and schedule data, notification data, social-network data, news (including popular or trending items on search engines or social networks)),.
As per claim 9, Dotan further teaches: ascertaining a task-termination flag in an active state and based thereupon determining a pendency of acknowledgment from the user; performing communication for the task execution status as a task notification based upon ascertaining the active state, wherein the communication is enabled through selecting a communication mode; repeating the communication for the task execution status periodically, wherein the repeated communication being resorted through a different mode of the communication; and setting the task-termination flag as inactive upon one or more of: a receipt of an acknowledgement from the user; an elapse of a dynamically-configured time; and an occurrence of a number of attempts of communication of the task execution status (par. 0130 At step 640 one or more times, within the first timeframe determined in step 630, are determined for presenting the notification to the user regarding the unaddressed event; par. 0131 the one or more times determined in step 640 may be updated based on sensed or determined changes in the user's availability and/or determined changes in urgency or importance of the underlying unaddressed event; par. 0134 where a user has not responded to a notification during the first timeframe and the corresponding unaddressed event is still pending and relevant (i.e. it hasn't expired), then a second timeframe may be determined. Similarly, where the user has asked to be reminded or notified again about an unaddressed event (such as described in connection to item 320d in FIG. 3), then a second timeframe may be determined (Alternatively, in some embodiments a second time of the one or more times determined in step 640 may be used for re-presenting the notification to the user); par. 0046 In some embodiments, unaddressed event detector 284 identifies triggering circumstances likely indicative of an unaddressed event … One or more detected trigger circumstances may provoke unaddressed event detector 284 to determine if an unaddressed event is pending).
As per claim 10, Dotan further teaches: computing a period of repetition of the communication based on the priority-level of the at least one current task, a nature of the at least one current task and the at least one device employed for communicating the at least one current task, the period representing a time of awaiting acknowledgement from the user in response to the communication for the task execution status to the user (par. 0054 event response analyzer 288 may be used for determining information about user response patterns, user-activities that may correspond to responding to an unaddressed event, how long a user engages in responding to the unaddressed event, modes of communication, or other information for determining user capabilities desired for addressing certain types of events, which may be used for determining user availability to respond to an unaddressed event; par. 0131 the one or more times determined in step 640 may be updated based on sensed or determined changes in the user's availability and/or determined changes in urgency or importance of the underlying unaddressed event).
As per claim 11, Dotan further teaches: awaiting the acknowledgement from the user until an elapse of the period; repeating the communication for the task execution status by resorting to a different mode of the communication in case of no acknowledgement from the user; and enabling the task-termination flag as inactive to discontinue further communication upon receipt of the acknowledgement (par. 0134 where a user has not responded to a notification during the first timeframe and the corresponding unaddressed event is still pending and relevant (i.e. it hasn't expired), then a second timeframe may be determined. Similarly, where the user has asked to be reminded or notified again about an unaddressed event (such as described in connection to item 320d in FIG. 3), then a second timeframe may be determined (Alternatively, in some embodiments a second time of the one or more times determined in step 640 may be used for re-presenting the notification to the user); par. 0100 Example notification 350 may be provided to a user, if the user's availability indicates the user can interact with the user device. If this is not the case, such as where the user is driving a car, then based on the same notification content, a notification may be generated and presented to the user in the format of a spoken prompt … where the unaddressed event is determined to have sufficient importance or urgency, the user may be provided a reminder as a pop-up notification on the Xbox graphical user interface).
As per claim 16 it is a voice personal assistant device having similar limitations as claim 3. Thus, claim 16 is rejected for the same rationale as applied to claim 3.
As per claim 17, Dotan further teaches: wherein the time-duration is defined by one or more of: a short time duration with one or more of a critical or a high level priority; a mid-size time duration with a high level priority; and a large time duration with a normal level priority (par. 0128 first timeframe corresponds to a span of time in which it is likely that the user would desire to be notified of the unaddressed event. For example, where contextual information indicates that a particular unaddressed event is urgent [high level priority], then the timeframe may be a shorter span or duration [short time duration]. The span of time may be a future time interval or may be a time interval starting at the present time and lasting until some point in the future).
As per claim 20 it is a voice personal assistant device having similar limitations as claim 7. Thus, claim 20 is rejected for the same rationale as applied to claim 7.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1 and 14 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Willy W. Huaracha whose telephone number is (571)270-5510. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30-5:00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Bradley Teets can be reached on (571) 272-3338. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/WH/
Examiner, Art Unit 2195
/BRADLEY A TEETS/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2197