Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/26/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
This Final Rejection is filed in response to Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment filed 06/27/2025.
Claims 1, 14 and 15 are amended.
Claims 1-20 remain pending.
Response to Arguments
Argument 1, Applicant argues in Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment filed 06/27/2025 on pg. 8-9 that Lange, Brown, and Salmasi fail to teach the primary claim limitations of, “monitoring, in real-time, user interaction with content in in a target application, wherein the target application is a productivity application; determining, based at least on the feature information, to recommend a form service for the content; identifying at least one form type using the feature information; presenting, without initiation by the user, a recommendation prompt of the form service including a user interface element for generating a form of the at least one form type);
Response to Argument 1, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner notes that Lange teaches in para. [0055], The Copilot application itself also acts as general purpose notification provider. It employs machine learning 353 to e.g. detect situations based on data in Copilot or in other productivity tools (email, calendar), and offers actions and information to the user that typically is relevant in such situations. Thus it enhances the situation detection and context resolution capabilities provided by the backend (Data Agent 310). Example: If the end users references project ABS in email communications with other users, the CoPilot might add additional relevant users to the notification context (as per the email recipients and senders). Thus the BRI for the primary claim limitation, “monitoring, in real-time, user interaction with content in in a target application, wherein the target application is a productivity application; determining, based at least on the feature information, to recommend a form service for the content; identifying at least one form type using the feature information; presenting, without initiation by the user, a recommendation prompt of the form service”, encompasses how CoPilot monitors a user’s action within an email productivity application in real time as the CoPilot app may automatically recommend a relevant notification context in response to tracking a user’s actions and their context.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication NO. 20170330195 “Lange”, further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication NO. 20140074454 “Brown”, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication NO. 20170169363 “Salmasi”.
Claim 1:
Lange teaches a method for providing form service assistance, comprising: monitoring, in real-time (i.e. para. [0055], The launchpad 112 can be a role based, personalized, real-time and contextual aggregation point for business applications and analytics), user interaction with content in in a target application, wherein the target application is a productivity application (i.e. para. [0107], “The Copilot application itself also acts as general purpose notification provider. It employs machine learning 353 to e.g. detect situations based on data in Copilot or in other productivity tools (email, calendar), and offers actions and information to the user that typically is relevant in such situations. Thus it enhances the situation detection and context resolution capabilities provided by the backend (Data Agent 310). Example: If the end users references project ABS in email communications with other users, the CoPilot might add additional relevant users to the notification context (as per the email recipients and senders)”, wherein it is noted that the Copilot application may monitor user actions in real-time within a productivity application, such as an email or calendar app, and provide assistance in the form of a relevant contextual recommendation action);
extracting feature information corresponding to the content in the target application (i.e. para. [0252], Fig. 14, “the application connector 1320 interfaces with multiple different software applications 1304-1310 and receives from at least one of the applications information such as application context 1324, user context 1326 and system context 1328”, wherein the BRI for feature information encompasses context information and the BRI for a target application encompasses the enterprise application that connects the plurality of applications, including associated productivity applications, such as an email and calendar apps, in the enterprise);
identifying, through evaluation of the feature information using a trigger model, that presentation of a form service to a user is appropriate (i.e. para. [0257], “CoPilot backend 1302 may present to a user any number of hints, tips, suggestions, help material, etc. which may be any combination of specific (e.g., context sensitive) or general. Based on a user's interaction with the integrated support user interface any number of algorithms, logic, rules, workflows, state diagrams, etc. may be triggered, applied, invoked, etc”, wherein the BRI for a trigger model encompasses how information context is evaluated and a user may be presented with a service in the form of appropriate context sensitive solution, hints, tips, or help);
In response to the identification that presentation of the form service to the user is appropriate (i.e. para. [0086], Figs. 5A-B), “SAP CoPilot learns over time and can also give you recommendations. It starts out with pre-defined business rules and gradually learns from behavioral data and recommends next best actions to the user. Business Context Awareness offers relevant insights just when you need them based on your role, context and current business situation by recognizing business objects on your screen or within the conversation”, wherein the CoPilot model present appropriately relevant help solution recommendations to the user in response to evaluations of the context information, as seen in Fig. 5B), selecting the form service from a plurality of form services using the feature information (i.e. para. [0078], “CoPilot entries can be living, gradually growing artifacts and software entities that can accompany a user from the identification of an issue to a solution for the issue, while providing support in the form of relevant context and actions”, wherein the BRI for the form service from a plurality of form services encompasses a specifically selected solution combination of a plurality of solution combinations, which is relevant to the issue based on identified application, user, and system context);
determining, based at least on the feature information, to recommend a form service for the content (i.e. para. [0253], Fig. 14, Process 1400 includes mapping existing received user input to at least one support ticket and enabling a chat with a user operating on an internal support system and enabling a search of a customer support system for information related to the support ticket, the application context, the user role and the system context); identifying at least one form type using the feature information (i.e. para. [0250], “first support integration module 1316 maps received user input and enables chat on an internal support system 1330 and enables a search of the internal support system (or customer support system) for eventual display on the integrated support user interface”, wherein the BRI for identifying at least one form type encompasses how the system identifies a solution result from a search, which is a solution for the type of support ticket that is relevant to the context provided and is eventually displayed to the user interface); presenting, without initiation by the user (i.e. para. [0045], Providing a user with a way to personalize an experience of the user based on a role requirement of the user can result in a better overall user experience. For example, the personalization can result in a UI automatically providing proposals for transactional tasks that the user may need to see), a recommendation prompt of the form service (i.e. para. [0254], Process 1400 includes displaying the results on the integrated support user interface (1408). For example, the CoPilot backend 1302 enables display of the results on the CoPilot front end user interface)
in response to receiving a confirmation to the recommendation prompt form user interface in the target application with at least the feature information (i.e. para. [0257], “During any portion of its lifetime the CoPilot backend 1302 may present to a user any number of hints, tips, suggestions, help material, etc. which may be any combination of specific (e.g., context sensitive) or general. Based on a user's interaction with the integrated support user interface any number of algorithms, logic, rules, workflows, state diagrams, etc. may be triggered, applied, invoked, etc”, wherein a user may interact with the support interface displaying a suggestion, which may then generate a new form displaying the suggested solution for the issue within the enterprise application),
While Lange teaches a recommendation prompt that generates a form service based on based on feature information and presenting a form service within the application as a recommended solution based on the feature information, Lange may not explicitly teach
presenting a recommendation prompt of the form service including a user interface element for generating a form of the at least one form type; in response to receiving a confirmation to the recommendation prompt based on activation of the user interface element initiating the form service to generate a new form user interface in the target application with at least the feature information, wherein the new-form user interface include user selectable options for creating form content, the user selectable options selecting using at least one feature included in the feature information corresponding to the content in the target application, and the form content including at least one form user selectable option that is interactable by recipients of a form generated using the new form user interface, the at least one form user selectable option created based on interaction of a form creator with a user selectable option of the user selectable options for creating form content.
However, Brown teaches
presenting a recommendation prompt of the form service including a user interface element for generating a form of the at least one form type (i.e. para. [0079-0080], Fig. 6, “ The virtual assistant may communicate this information obtained from the patient's medical records and/or from a scheduling system of the doctor's office in the dialog representation 120(3)”, wherein it is noted in Fig. 6, that the system presents a recommendation for an appointment with a user’s doctor); and
in response to receiving a confirmation to the recommendation prompt based on activation of the user interface element initiating the form service to generate a new form user interface in the target application with at least the feature information (i.e. para. [0079], Fig. 6, “virtual assistant may integrate information from multiple sources to provide the patient 102 convenient access to healthcare related information through a conversation GUI 114”, wherein it is noted in Fig. 6 that if a user confirms ‘yes’ to a doctor appointment the system may initiate the recommended service by booking an appointment for the user using their contextual information within the healthcare application)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add presenting a recommendation prompt of the form service including a user interface element for generating a form of the at least one form type; and in response to receiving a confirmation to the recommendation prompt based on activation of the user interface element, initiating the form service to generate the form, to Lange’s system that generates a service in response to a recommendation confirmation, with a typed activation of a recommendation prompt that results in the generation of the recommended service, as taught by Brown. One would have been motivated to combine Brown with Lange, and would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so, in order to save a user time by providing a clearer and more easily executed proposed action to a user.
While Lange-Brown teach a recommendation prompt that generates a new form interface with at least the feature information, Lange-Brown may not explicitly teach
wherein the new-form user interface include user selectable options for creating form content, the user selectable options selecting using at least one feature included in the feature information corresponding to the content in the target application, and the form content including at least one form user selectable option that is interactable by recipients of a form generated using the new form user interface, the at least one form user selectable option created based on interaction of a form creator with a user selectable option of the user selectable options for creating form content.
However, Salmasi teaches
in response to receiving a confirmation to the recommendation prompt based on activation of the user interface element initiating the form service to generate a new form user interface in the target application with at least the feature information (i.e. para. [0008], “Users can create meetings/plans by selecting times and places within the bounded area and having invited meeting attendees vote on the most popular times and/or venues displayed within that bounded area”, wherein the BRI for “a new form user interface” encompasses the invitation generated as a user confirms the meeting creation and the BRI for “feature information” encompasses how a UI may be populated with popular times and/or venues within a bounded area) wherein the new-form user interface include user selectable options for creating form content, (i.e. Para. [0033], “FIGS. 7a-s illustrate the Plan feature 50. This feature allows users to create meetings, parties, events, etc. and invite people 52 to attend and/or vote 54 on the various aspects of the plan. For each aspect of the plan, the creator may leave the aspect unlocked, in which case invitees may edit the aspect (e.g., add other invitees, suggest another date, another time, another neighborhood, other venues, etc.”, wherein the invitation interface includes voting options for recipients to vote on times and/or venues)
, the user selectable options selecting using at least one feature included in the feature information corresponding to the content in the target application (i.e. para. [0033], Fig. 7E-F, “invitees may edit the aspect (e.g., add other invitees, suggest another date, another time, another neighborhood, other venues, etc.)”, wherein new plan form displays options that let invited users select features such as a date, time, and venue for the plan), and the form content including at least one form user selectable option that is interactable by recipients of a form generated using the new form user interface, the at least one form user selectable option created based on interaction of a form creator with a user selectable option of the user selectable options for creating form content (i.e. para. [0033], Fig. 7A-F, “the creator of the plan may provide a choice of two or more venues from which to choose and the invitees are requested to select one of the venues and/or propose another venue” wherein it is noted that the form plan includes a user selectable venue option that was created based on the creator of the new plan selecting initial venue options for creating a new plan form).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add wherein the new-form user interface include user selectable options for creating form content, the user selectable options selecting using at least one feature included in the feature information corresponding to the content in the target application, and the form content including at least one form user selectable option that is interactable by recipients of a form generated using the new form user interface, the at least one form user selectable option created based on interaction of a form creator with, to Lange-Brown’s system that generates a recommended service in response to a recommendation prompt confirmation, with how a new form service interface is includes options to attendee users to select and further vote on as part of the form service, where the user selectable options are selected based on the form creators choice when creating the new plan form to send out to a group, as taught by Salmasi. One would have been motivated to combine Salmasi with Lange-Brown as the combination gives users more freedom and flexibility to find a solution that fits a group’s specific circumstances.
Claim 2:
Lange, Brown, and Salmasi teach the method of claim 1. Lange further teaches wherein the feature information comprises at least one of: keywords in the content (i.e. para. [0173], “the Contextual Analyzer uses annotations (Badge, Headerinfo, Identification, Lineltem, SemanticObject) to determine certain business object properties (e.g. title, subtitle, etc.)”, wherein the BRI for keywords in the content encompasses how the context analyzer determines information, such as business titles, from keyword annotations in an application the user is viewing); and event information associated with an event in the content (i.e. para. [0176], the Contextual Analyzer can discover, classify and prioritize business objects that are currently being viewed within Fiori apps. Copilot subscribes to events from the Launchpad that are invoked when a user navigates between and within apps, allowing Copilot to know what business objects the user is visiting”, wherein the BRI for event information associated with an event in the content encompasses how the context analyzer determines context information, such as business objects, related to an app a user is viewing).
Claim 3:
Lange, Brown, and Salmasi teach the method of claim 1. Lange further teaches wherein the determining to recommend a form service comprises: determining to recommend the form service based at least on the feature information through a trigger model, and wherein the trigger model comprises a rule-based trigger model and/or a machine learning-based trigger model (i.e. para. [0257], “CoPilot backend 1302 may present to a user any number of hints, tips, suggestions, help material, etc. which may be any combination of specific (e.g., context sensitive) or general. Based on a user's interaction with the integrated support user interface any number of algorithms, logic, rules, workflows, state diagrams, etc. may be triggered, applied, invoked, etc”, wherein recommended help material may be triggered upon the determination that is specific to any combination of context, which includes application context , user context, and system context. Wherein the model for triggering recommended help material is based on the rules associated with the extracted entity context data.
The examiner further notes in para. [0086] that, “SAP CoPilot learns over time and can also give you recommendations. It starts out with pre-defined business rules and gradually learns from behavioral data and recommends next best actions to the user. Business Context Awareness offers relevant insights just when you need them based on your role, context and current business situation by recognizing business objects on your screen or within the conversation”, thus the BRI for a machine learning-based trigger model encompasses how the CoPilot machine may learn new triggers as the user inputs behavioral data).
Claim 4:
Lange, Brown, and Salmasi teach the method of claim 3.
Lange further teaches wherein the rule-based trigger model comprises at least one rule defined for at least a part of the feature information (i.e. para. [0094], “it includes past situational recommendations ranked as useful by the users themselves, business data recently accessed by the user, interaction history logs, user's business role in the organization, data from “similar” users, location and device type from which the user accessing the system, etc.).
Claim 5:
Lange, Brown, and Salmasi teach the method of claim 3.
Lange further teaches wherein the machine learning-based trigger model adopts at least one feature corresponding to at least a part of the feature information (i.e. para. [0094], the business data considered includes structured and unstructured content from heterogeneous sources, and is provided by Data Agents and Plugins, and Business domain-specific machine learning algorithms).
Claim 6:
Lange, Brown, and Salmasi teach the method of claim 1,
Lange further teaches
wherein the recommendation prompt is presented in the target application (i.e. para. [0237], Fig. 11A-B, “The Copilot windows 1110 and 1160 enable to following container user interactions including automatically launch Copilot from content (e.g. making suggestions to user on how to proceed on a certain action)”, wherein .
Claim 7:
Lange, Brown, and Salmasi teach the method of claim 6.
Lange further teaches wherein the recommendation prompt is provided in at least one of: a body region of the content, a sidebar region of the content, and a floating window (i.e. para. [0232], FIG. 11B, an example screen shot 1150 illustrates an example CoPilot 1160 window as a floating window).
Claim 8:
Lange, Brown, and Salmasi teach the method of claim 1.
Lange further teaches wherein the recommendation prompt is presented in a communication message sent to a user of the target application (i.e. para. [0257], “ During any portion of its lifetime the CoPilot backend 1302 may present to a user any number of hints, tips, suggestions, help material, etc”, wherein the BRI for a communication message encompasses the presentation of a suggestion).
Claim 9:
Lange, Brown, and Salmasi teach the method of claim 1. Lange further teaches wherein the initiating the form service comprises: initiating the form service in the target application with at least the feature information; or initiating the form service in a form application with at least the feature information (i.e. para. [0257], “CoPilot backend 1302 may present to a user any number of hints, tips, suggestions, help material, etc. which may be any combination of specific (e.g., context sensitive) or general. Based on a user's interaction with the integrated support user interface any number of algorithms, logic, rules, workflows, state diagrams, etc. may be triggered, applied, invoked, etc”, wherein the BRI for feature information encompasses how the suggested solution is based on the specific context, and how the suggestion may be subsequently triggered by user interaction with the CoPilot support window).
Claim 10:
Lange, Brown, and Salmasi teach the method of claim 1.
Lange teaches further comprising: assisting, in the form service, to create a form associated with the content based at least on the feature information (i.e. para. [0249], If a support ticket needs to be created in the external support system 1332, then the key user can first review the existing chat content, screen shots and other content… user context and system context is sent to the external support system 1332).
Claim 11:
Lange, Brown, and Salmasi teach the method of claim 10.
Lange further teaches wherein the assisting to create a form comprises at least one of: providing suggested questions based at least on the feature information (i.e. para. [0108], “ The CoPilot supports multi-modal interactions with its users. The latter can request data or ask for help via natural language queries (text or voice commands). The CoPilot will be capable of extracting the business semantics and parameter out of this commands and provide user back with relevant information and suggest proper actions to solve the problem”, wherein the BRI for suggested questions encompasses how the CoPilot may request data from a user in order to solve a current problem); providing suggested options based at least on the feature information and/or predetermined knowledge (i.e. para. [0262], The information CoPilot displays is depending on Emma's current screen, tracing information (e.g. error codes, etc.), and her usage history); providing relevant information corresponding to the suggested options (i.e. para. [0262], A chatbot within CoPilot greets Emma and offers context-specific information (e.g. tutorials, documentation, community content, videos etc.)).; providing a suggested form based at least on the feature information (i.e. para. [0109], “a project manager (PM) at company X opens the CoPilot and shoots a voice command such as “Copilot, what is going on with the costs of project ABC this month?” Referring to FIG. 5B, which illustrates the CoPilot user interface 502 on the mobile device 500, the CoPilot will provide a meaningful response such as “The project cost for this month are higher than average. Take a look at the cost trend chart.””, wherein the BRI for a suggested form encompasses how CoPilot provides a suggested cost trend chart based on contextual user and application information); and providing suggested operations based at least on the feature information (i.e. para. [0108], The CoPilot will be capable of extracting the business semantics and parameter out of this commands and provide user back with relevant information and suggest proper actions to solve the problem).
Claim 12:
Lange, Brown, and Salmasi teach the method of claim 10
Lange further teaches comprising: providing a response result of the form and/or operations suggested based at least on the response result of the form, in the target application, a form application or a communication message (i.e. para. [0272], “Emma and Eddie are pleased with the solution. Eddie happily fills in the feedback survey CoPilot asks him to complete”, wherein CoPilot provides a survey response from in the SAP applications so that the system might help End Users to solve similar issue more easily and include them in CoPilot).
Claim 13:
Lange, Brown, and Salmasi teach the method of claim 10.
Lange further teaches comprising at least one of: creating, based at least on the feature information, a communication message for distributing the form (i.e. para. [0271], “ Emma and Eddie automatically receive updates in CoPilot on the processing status of the IT ticket. As soon Sophie resolves the issue the proposed solution is pushed to Emma and Eddie”, wherein it is noted that the support ticket communication updates that are distributed to user’s Emma and Eddie, wherein the created support ticket updates are based on the user and application context); and creating, based at least on the feature information and an intermediate response result of the form, a communication message for reminding to respond to the form (i.e. para. [0272], “Eddie happily fills in the feedback survey CoPilot asks him to complete”, wherein a feedback survey is created and sent to the user Eddie as a reminder to respond to the closing of the support ticket).
Claim 14:
Claim 14 is the apparatus claim reciting similar features to Claim 1 and is rejected for similar reasons.
Claim 15:
Claim 15 is the apparatus claim reciting similar features to Claim 1 and is rejected for similar reasons.
Claim 16:
Claim 16 is the apparatus claim reciting similar features to Claim 2 and is rejected for similar reasons.
Claim 17:
Claim 17 is the apparatus claim reciting similar features to Claim 3 and is rejected for similar reasons.
Claim 18:
Claim 18 is the apparatus claim reciting similar features to Claim 4 and is rejected for similar reasons.
Claim 19:
Claim 19 is the apparatus claim reciting similar features to Claim 5 and is rejected for similar reasons.
Claim 20:
Claim 20 is the apparatus claim reciting similar features to Claim 6 and is rejected for similar reasons.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Patent Application Publication NO. 20190196779 “DECLERCK”, teaches in para. [0027], a personal assistant coordinator application 150 coordinates communications between computing device 100 and multiple personal assistant services 142. In some embodiments, personal assistant coordinator application 150 includes multiple personal assistant agents 212 that interface with respective personal assistant services 142.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID H TAN whose telephone number is (571)272-7433. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:30.
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, Cesar Paula can be reached on (571) 272-4128. 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.
/CESAR B PAULA/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2145