DETAILED ACTION
Introduction
1. This office action is in response to Applicant’s submission filed on 7/13/2026. Claims 21-41 are pending in the application and have been examined.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
3. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 7/13/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
4. The amendment filed 7/13/2026 has been entered and fully considered. With regard to the rejection under 35 USC 103, the amendments filed have been entered and fully considered. However, the arguments are not persuasive.
First, it is argued that the references do not teach or suggest “includes an identification of one or more valid voice inputs for the assistant system.” However, the arguments concede that Fujii describes providing “a list” of yes/no as responses to the question “are you alright?” These are both valid responses to the question. It appears that the Amendment is arguing that the references do not include a list of all valid responses, however, that is not what is claimed. Accordingly, Fujii renders obvious the claimed “identification of one or more valid voice inputs for the assistant system.”
Second, it is argued that the reference and the claims use the word “misunderstood” differently. However, the claims do not recite a particular definition of “misunderstood.” Thus, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims allows for the manner of using “misunderstood” as described in Fujii. Thus, Fujii renders obvious “in accordance with another determination that the assistant system misunderstood the one or more further voice inputs.”
Third, it is argued that the motivation provided is conclusory. As noted above, the use of the term “misunderstood” as used by Fujii is within the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim terms. Further, Fujii describes a way to handle misunderstandings that the primary reference does not include. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art, in view of the teachings of both references, would have been motivated to improve the device of Yang with the added feature of Fujii that addresses misunderstandings.
Finally, it is argued that the Fujii reference is not analogous art. Fujii describes a dialog management system that processes a dialog between a user and a virtual assistant/chatbot. The present application is for a virtual assistant that can perform a dialog with a user. Thus, Fujii is in the same field of endeavor as the present application and is analogous art.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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 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.
6. Claims 21, 24-26, 28-33, and 35-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 20230230303 (Yang et al., hereinafter “Yang”) in view of U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 20160163314 (Fujii et al., hereinafter “Fujii”).
With regard to Claim 21, Yang describes:
A method, comprising:
causing presentation, at a head-mounted XR device, of a first representation associated with an assistant system, the first representation indicating that the assistant system is interactable via a first set of voice commands; (Paragraph 42 describes that an avatar can be provided to a user using an augmented reality device.)
detecting one or more voice inputs from a user of the head-mounted XR device; (Paragraph 44 describes that the device receives voice inputs from a user.)
[[in accordance with a determination that the assistant system understood the one or more voice inputs from the user as being directed to the assistant system,]] causing presentation at the head-mounted XR device of a second representation of the assistant system, wherein the second representation is distinct from the first representation, [[and the second representation indicates the assistant system understood a portion of the one or more voice inputs;]] (Paragraphs 59 and 60 describes that the representations of the avatar may change based on detected events or user reactions.)
detecting one or more further voice inputs from the user; (Paragraph 44 describes that the device receives voice inputs from a user.) and
[[in accordance with another determination that the assistant system misunderstood the one or more further voice inputs,]] causing presentation at the head-mounted XR device of a third representation of the assistant system, wherein the third representation is distinct from the first and second representations, [[and the third representation: indicates the assistant system misunderstood the one or more further voice inputs, and includes an identification of one or more valid voice inputs for the assistant system.]] (Paragraphs 59 and 60 describes that the representations of the avatar may change based on detected events or user reactions.)
Yang does not explicitly describe changing the representations based on whether or not the assistant system understood or misunderstood the voice inputs, or providing a list of one or more valid voice inputs if the command is misunderstood.
However, Fujii describes that an assistant can determine when a user input is misunderstood (paragraph 52), save a list of possibly misunderstood commands (paragraph 75), and provide a list of valid commands when a command is misunderstood (paragraph 80).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the misunderstood user command detection and valid command list display as described by Fujii into the system of Yang to ensure the correction of misunderstandings, as described in paragraph 80 of Fujii.
With respect to Claim 24, Yang describes “the first representation, the second representation, and/or the third representation include an XR assistant avatar, (Paragraph 45 describes that the representation is an avatar with a face.) and
a respective form of the XR assistant avatar presented in one of the first representation, the second representation, and/or the third representation, respectively, is based on one or more of its voice, speech, emotion, tone, pitch, appearance, size, shape, clothing, orientation, position, depth, movement, gesture, facial expression, color, shading, outline, brightness, luminescence, transparency, or an icon associated with the XR assistant avatar.” (Paragraph 45 describes that the facial expression can depend on the voice of the avatar.)
With respect to Claim 25, Yang describes “the XR assistant avatar has a first pose while the first representation is presented, and wherein the XR assistant avatar has a second pose, distinct from the first pose, while the second representation is presented.” Paragraph 49 describes that the avatar’s facial expression (pose) changes based on user input.
With respect to Claim 26, Yang does not explicitly describe this subject matter. However, Fujii describes “the third representation includes an indication that the further one or more voice inputs was not detected by the assistant system.” Paragraph 52 of Fujii describes that the system does not activate any command if no command can be detected. The fact that no command has been activated would be apparent to the user.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the failure of detection of a command as described by Fujii into the system of Yang to detect and ensure the correction of misunderstandings, as described in paragraph 80 of Fujii.
With respect to Claims 28-33, storage medium Claim 28 and method Claim 21 are related as a storage medium programmed to perform the same method, with each claimed storage medium function corresponding to each claimed method step. Accordingly, Claims 28-33 are similarly rejected under the same rationale as applied above with respect to Claims 21-26.
With respect to Claims 35-40, system Claim 35 and method Claim 1 are related as a system programmed to perform the same method, with each claimed system function corresponding to each claimed method step. Accordingly, Claims 35-40 are similarly rejected under the same rationale as applied above with respect to Claims 21-26.
7. Claims 22, 23, 29, 30, 36, and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Yang in view of Fujii and further in view of U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 20220303703 (VanBlon et al., hereinafter “VanBlon”).
With regard to Claim 22, Yang in view of Fujii does not explicitly describe this subject matter. However, VanBlon describes “before detecting the one or more voice inputs and the one or more further voice inputs, causing presentation, with the first representation, of an indication that a microphone in electronic communication with the head-mounted XR device is active for receiving voice commands from the user.” Figures 4-6 illustrate that a display of the device can include an indication that a microphone is active. Further, paragraph 52 describes that the device may be a virtual reality headset.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the microphone active indicator as described by VanBlon into the system of Yang in view of Fujii to let the user know which microphone is active, as described in paragraph 71 of VanBlon.
With regard to Claim 29, Yang in view of Fujii does not explicitly describe this subject matter. However, VanBlon describes “the indication that the microphone is active is distinct from another portion of the first representation.” Figure 5 shows that the microphone active indicator is separate from other portions, such as a portion used to switch microphones.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the separate microphone active indicator as described by VanBlon into the system of Yang in view of Fujii to separately let the user know which microphone is active, as described in paragraph 74 of VanBlon.
With respect to Claims 29 and 30, storage medium Claim 28 and method Claim 21 are related as a storage medium programmed to perform the same method, with each claimed storage medium function corresponding to each claimed method step. Accordingly, Claims 29 and 30 are similarly rejected under the same rationale as applied above with respect to Claims 22 and 23.
With respect to Claims 36 and 37, system Claim 35 and method Claim 1 are related as a system programmed to perform the same method, with each claimed system function corresponding to each claimed method step. Accordingly, Claims 36 and 37 are similarly rejected under the same rationale as applied above with respect to Claims 22 and 23.
8. Claims 27 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Yang in view of Fujii and further in view of U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 20210303861 (Becorest et al., hereinafter “Becorest”).
With regard to Claim 27, Yang describes “the first representation is presented via the head-mounted XR device.” Paragraph 42 of Yang describes that the display device may be an augmented reality device.
Yang in view of Fujii does not explicitly describe “presenting a proactive suggestion of voice commands for the user that are valid voice inputs for the assistant system.” However, Becorest describes an avatar guided system. Paragraph 69 of Becorest specifically describes that an avatar system can display suggested commands to a user.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the suggested commands as described by Becorest into the system of Yang in view of Fujii to facilitate user interaction, as described in paragraph 69 of Becorest.
With respect to Claim 34, storage medium Claim 28 and method Claim 21 are related as a storage medium programmed to perform the same method, with each claimed storage medium function corresponding to each claimed method step. Accordingly, Claim 34 is similarly rejected under the same rationale as applied above with respect to Claim 27.
9. Claim 41 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Yang in view of Fujii and further in view of U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 20220358729 (Hong).
Yang in view of Fujii does not explicitly describe “the identification of the one or more valid voice inputs is presented visually adjacent to an avatar representation as part of the third representation.” However, Hong describes system that displays commands adjacent an avatar. Paragraph 126 of Hong describes at least one selectable command 720 may be displayed near an avatar 710. Paragraph 126 describes that the command can be selected by a voice command. Paragraph 130 further suggests that the commands can be displayed anywhere on the display.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the displayed commands as described by Hong into the system of Yang in view of Fujii to provide relevant and accessible content to a user, as described in paragraph 124 of Hong.
Conclusion
10. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 20230127090 (Eirinberg et al.) also describes a voice activated system that provides a display of commands nearby an avatar.
11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDWARD TRACY whose telephone number is (571)272-8332. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9 AM- 5PM.
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, Bhavesh Mehta can be reached on 571-272-7453. 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.
/EDWARD TRACY JR./Examiner, Art Unit 2656
Prosecution Insights