DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 10/31/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's remaining arguments regarding the 35 USC 103 rejections with respect to claims 1-15 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues in page 17 that Hlavac and Kim do not disclose “displaying, by the electronic device, an interactive message corresponding to at least one of the prioritized application functions at a position corresponding to the at least one object; displaying the application icon at a position corresponding to the interactive message and receiving, by the electronic device, a user's selection on the displayed interactive message”. In response the Examiner contests that Hlavac at least teaches displaying, by the electronic device, an interactive message corresponding to at least one of the prioritized application functions at a position corresponding to the at least one object; displaying the application icon at a position corresponding to the interactive message and receiving, by the electronic device, a user's selection on the displayed interactive message in Figs 5#508, 11-12, [0072]-[0073], [0095]-[0096] wherein the visual suggestion with selectable components are overlayed corresponding to an identified anchor object as an interactive messages and activated with user input. See Figs 11B-C reproduced below:
PNG
media_image1.png
400
584
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
396
610
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Applicant's remaining arguments regarding the 35 USC 103 rejections with respect to the amended limitations of “in response to receiving the user's selection on the displayed interactive message, displaying the application icon at a position corresponding to the interactive message.” of independent claims 1, 5 and 10 in pages 17-20, against Rosas-Maxemin attacking individually have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection necessitated by the amendment.
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, 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hlavac et al (US 20220414403 A1), in view of Kim et al (US 20130144674 A), and further in view of Woodyard et al. (US 11210730 B1).
RE claim 1, Hlavac teaches A method for providing actionable content in an electronic device (Fig 5, abstract, [0067]), the method comprising:
obtaining, by the electronic device, an image ([0028], [0067]);
extracting, by the electronic device, scene information by analyzing a scene from the obtained image; identifying, by the electronic device, at least one object from the scene information ([0060], [0067]-[0068], [0098]);
determining, by the electronic device, at least one scene description ([0061], [0069]);
extracting, by the electronic device, a list of application functions based on the at least one object ([0062], [0070]);
filtering, by the electronic device, application functions from the list of application functions based on the at least one scene description and a user context ([0069]-[0071], [0083]);
prioritizing, by the electronic device, the filtered application functions based on a historical usage of the filtered application functions ([0065], [0071], [0083], [0086], [0093]);
displaying, by the electronic device, the prioritized application functions at a position corresponding to the at least one object and displaying, by the electronic device an application icon corresponding to an application configured to execute an application function (Figs 5, 11, [0072]-[0073]); and
launching, by the electronic device, an application function based on a user's selection from the displayed application icon (Figs 5, 11, [0074]).
Hlavac further teaches providing visual suggestion over the image and displaying, by the electronic device, an interactive message corresponding to at least one of the prioritized application functions for at a position corresponding to the at least one object; displaying the application icon at a position corresponding to the interactive message and receiving, by the electronic device, a user's selection on the displayed interactive message (Figs 5#508, 11-12, [0072]-[0073], [0095]-[0096] wherein the visual suggestion has selectable components).
Hlavac is silent RE: displaying, by the electronic device, an augmented reality (AR) mode for providing the visual suggestion over the image; identifying, by the electronic device, a user's input selecting the AR mode and the prioritizing based on historical usage frequency.
However Kim teaches displaying an augmented reality (AR) mode for providing the visual suggestion over the image; identifying, by the electronic device, a user's input selecting the AR mode in Fig 10, [0091] in order to display the recommendation based on explicit user action. Kim further teaches prioritizing the filtered application based on historical usage frequency in [0087]-[0088].
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include in Hlavac a system and method of displaying, by the electronic device, an augmented reality (AR) mode for providing the visual suggestion over the image; identifying, by the electronic device, a user's input selecting the AR mode and the prioritizing based on historical usage frequency, applying Kim, in order to activate the visual suggestion display the user interactively as an AR mode and display the filtered and prioritized applications to enhance user experience.
Hlavac as modified by Kim is silent RE: and in response to receiving the user's selection on the displayed interactive message, displaying the application icon at a position corresponding to the interactive message.
However Woodyard teaches hiding/displaying the application icon as a selectable control in an interactive message upon user input in Figs 1-2, 4, abstract, col 6 lines 61-col 7 lines 3. This can equally applied in order to display the corresponding icons upon user input, as an additional or alternative option to provide flexibility, control cluster as readily recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art, wherein multi-level action items are well known in the typical user interfaces.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include in Hlavac as modified by Kim a system and method of in response to receiving the user's selection on the displayed interactive message, displaying the application icon at a position corresponding to the interactive message; applying Woodyard as set forth above, as an additional or alternative option/design choice to provide flexibility or control cluster, to enhance user experience.
RE claim 2, Hlavac teaches wherein the filtered application functions are arranged in a descending order of priority, and wherein the user context comprises a temporal context, a spatial context, a network context, and a physiological context of a user ([0065], [0061], [0070]-[0074]).
RE claim 3, Hlavac teaches wherein filtering the application functions comprises: generating, by the electronic device, at least one augmented context based on the at least one scene description and the user context, wherein the at least one augmented context indicates an overall digital representation of the scene with respect to the at least one object in the scene and the user context while viewing the scene; and filtering, by the electronic device, the application functions from the list of application functions by applying the at least one augmented context to an artificial intelligence (AI) model ([0065], [0061]-[0062], [0070]-[0074]).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hlavac as modified by Kim and Woodyard, and further in view of Fukazawa et al (US 20180314889 A1).
RE claim 4, Hlavac as modified by Kim and Woodyard is silent RE: interactive message is varied based on a priority of the application function executed by the launched application. However Fukazawa teaches changing the display size of one or more of the plurality of content items on the basis of the priority determined for each of the plurality of content items in [0085], [0090] to improve display clutter/overlapping.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include in Hlavac as modified by Kim and Woodyard a system and method interactive message is varied based on a priority of the application function executed by the launched application, as set forth above applying Fukazawa, in order to provide visual feedback of the priority/ranking of the function and/or improve display clutter and thereby increasing system effectiveness and user experience.
Claims 5-6 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hlavac et al (US 20220414403 A1), and further in view of Woodyard et al (US 20190147741 A).
RE claim 5, Hlavac teaches A method for providing augmented reality (AR) recommendations to a user by an electronic device (Figs 5, 11, abstract), comprising:
displaying, by the electronic device, an image on a screen of the electronic device ([0028]);
identifying, by the electronic device, at least one real world object in the image ([0028], [0060], [0067]-[0068], [0098]);
determining, by the electronic device, at least one function of at least one application installed in the electronic device based on the at least one identified real world object ([0062], [0070]); and
augmenting, by the electronic device, the at least one function of the at least one application as an AR recommendation over the image, the AR recommendation comprising an interactive message corresponding to the at least one function and that is displayed at a position corresponding to the at least one real world object,receiving, by the electronic device, a selection of the displayed interactive message; displaying, by the electronic device, an application icon corresponding to the at least one application that is configured to execute at least one function and executing, by the electronic device, the at least one application based on a selection of the displayed application icon (Figs 5, 11-12, [0028], [0072]-[0074], [0095]-[0096]).
Hlavac is silent RE: and in response to receiving the user's selection on the displayed interactive message, displaying the application icon at a position corresponding to the interactive message.
However Woodyard teaches hiding/displaying the application icon as a selectable control in an interactive message upon user input in Figs 1-2, 4, abstract, col 6 lines 61-col 7 lines 3. This can equally applied in order to display the corresponding icons upon user input, as an additional or alternative option to provide flexibility, control cluster as readily recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art, wherein multi-level action items are well known in the typical user interfaces.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include in Hlavac a system and method of in response to receiving the user's selection on the displayed interactive message, displaying the application icon at a position corresponding to the interactive message; applying Woodyard as set forth above, as an additional or alternative option/design choice to provide flexibility or control cluster, to enhance user experience.
RE claim 6, Hlavac teaches wherein determining the at least one function of the at least one application installed in the electronic device comprises:
determining, by the electronic device, an identifier of the at least one identified real world object ([0060], [0068], [0072] wherein type of object eg., car is an object identifier);
matching, by the electronic device, the identifier of the at least one identified real world object with a predefined set of identifiers embedded with the at least one application ([0070]-[0072]);
fetching, by the electronic device, the at least one function of the at least one application based on a match between the identifier of the at least one identified real world object and the predefined set of identifiers ([0070]-[0072]).
Claims 10-11 recite limitations similar in scope with limitations of claims 5-6 and therefore rejected under the same rationale. In addition Hlavac teaches An electronic device for providing augmented reality (AR) recommendations to a user, comprising: a screen; a memory storing instructions; a processor configured to execute the instructions (Figs 1-2, [0031]- [0034], [0037]).
Claims 7, 9, 13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hlavac as modified by Woodyard, and in view of Kim, and further in view of Sert et al (US 20200401912 A1), and further in view of Fukazawa.
RE claim 7, Hlavac teaches wherein augmenting the at least one function of the at least one application comprises:
classifying, by the electronic device, the at least one identified real world object to one or more object classes based on an attribute of the at least one identified real world object ([0068], [0098]);
determining, by the electronic device, an intention of each function of the at least one application for each object class ([0026], [0071]-[0072], [0096])
identifying, by the electronic device, a preferred data type linked to the intention of each function of the at least one application for each object class; fetching, by the electronic device, data objects linked to the preferred data type ([0025]-[0026], [0061]- [0062]);
determining, by the electronic device, a context of a scene in the image, wherein the context of the scene comprises an activity performed on each object class and an activity performed by each object class ([0060]-[0062], [0067]-[0068], [0098]);
determining, by the electronic device, a context of the user of the electronic device in real time, wherein the context of the user comprises a temporal context, a spatial context, a network context, and a physiological context of the user ([0065], [0061], [0070]-[0074]);
generating, by the electronic device, at least one augmented context based on the context of the scene, and the context of the user for each object class, wherein the at least one augmented context indicates an overall digital representation of the scene with respect to the at least one real world object in the scene and the context of the user while viewing the scene ([0065], [0061]-[0062], [0070]-[0074]); and
determining, by the electronic device, a priority of functions of the at least one application based on a historical usage of the functions of the at least one application ([0065], [0071], [0083], [0086]).
Hlavac as modified by Woodyard is silent RE: historical usage frequency. However Kim teaches prioritizing based on historical usage frequency in [0087]-[0088].
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include in Hlavac as modified by Woodyard a system and method of the prioritizing based on historical usage frequency, applying Kim, in order to enhance user experience.
Hlavac as modified by Woodyard and Kim is silent RE: fetching, by the electronic device, a message content mapped to each function of the at least one application; generating, by the electronic device, a first list of messages with corresponding functions of the at least one application based on the mapped message content and the data objects for each object class;
However Sert teaches as fetching an action message associated with an event for display or feedback in Fig 2, [0020]-[0021], [0025]-[0026], [0158] etc. This can be equally be applied in Hlavac to present the associated messages as a list of messages corresponding to the matched set of suggested applications (Fig 11, [0072], [0083]), as readily recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include in Hlavac as modified by Woodyard and Kim a system and method of fetching, by the electronic device, a message content mapped to each function of the at least one application; generating, by the electronic device, a first list of messages with corresponding functions of the at least one application based on the mapped message content and the data objects for each object class, as suggested by Sert, in order to provide messages corresponding to the functions and thereby increasing system effectiveness and user experience.
Hlavac as modified by Woodyard, Kim and Sert further teaches
filtering, by the electronic device, a second list of messages with corresponding functions of the at least one application from the first list of messages for each object class by applying the at least one augmented context to an artificial intelligence (AI) model; and determining the priority of functions of the at least one application corresponding to the second list of messages (Hlavac ([0070]-[0071], [0083] and Sert [0026], [0028]. In addition, when Hlavac is modified by Sert as set forth above, it would determine the priority of functions of the at least one application corresponding to the second list of messages to effectively implement the associated messages.);
filtering, by the electronic device, a third list of messages with corresponding functions of the at least one application from the second list of messages for each object class based on the priority of the functions of the at least one application corresponding to the second list of messages (Hlavac ([0070]-[0071], [0083] and Sert [0026], [0028]); and
augmenting, by the electronic device, each message in the third list of messages as the AR recommendation over the image, wherein the AR recommendation is configured to trigger a function associated with each message, and wherein a position of the AR recommendation is rendered based on a position of the at least one real world object in the image (Hlavac Figs 5, 11, [0072]-[0073])..
Hlavac as modified by Woodyard, Kim and Sert is silent RE: wherein a size of the AR recommendation is varied based on the priority of the launched application function. However Fukazawa teaches changing the display size of one or more of the plurality of content items on the basis of the priority determined for each of the plurality of content items in [0085], [0090] to improve display clutter/overlapping.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include in Hlavac as modified by Woodyard, Kim and Sert a system and method wherein a size of the AR recommendation is varied based on the priority of the launched application function, as set forth above applying Fukazawa, in order to provide visual feedback of the priority/ranking of the function and/or improve display clutter and thereby increasing system effectiveness and user experience.
RE claim 9, Hlavac as modified by Woodyard, Kim, Sert and Fukazawa teaches wherein filtering the second list of messages comprises: obtaining, by the electronic device, an augmented context vector that represents the at least one augmented context; determining, by the electronic device, a probability vector for each function of the at least one application by providing the augmented context vector and the first list of messages to the AI model; identifying, by the electronic device, the functions of the at least one application with the probability vector matches to a threshold condition; and generating, by the electronic device, the second list of messages with corresponding functions of the at least one application by sorting the identified functions of the at least one application with corresponding messages based on the probability vector (Hlavac [0091], [0096], [0098]-[0100] and Sert Fig 2, abstract, [0026], [0048], [0052] etc).
Claims 13 and 15 recite limitations similar in scope with limitations of claims 7 and 9 and therefore rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 8 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hlavac as modified by Woodyard, Kim, Sert and Fukazawa, and further in view of Yu et al (US 20200272913 A1).
RE claim 8, Hlavac as modified by Woodyard, Kim, Sert and Fukazawa teaches wherein generating at least one augmented context comprises: determining, by the electronic device, an augmented context vector that represents the at least one augmented context (Hlavac [0091], [0096], [0098]-[0100]).
Hlavac as modified by Woodyard, Kim, Sert and Fukazawa is silent RE generating, by the electronic device, hot encodings for the context of the scene, the context of the user and each object class; and determining a cross product of the hot encodings. However Sert teaches applying well known hot encoding in [0115] for generating binary sequence for prediction in AI systems. In addition Yu teaches determining a cross product of the hot encodings Fig 4, [0051], [0064] etc to improve feature prediction for context based recommendation.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include in Hlavac as modified by Woodyard, Kim, Sert and Fukazawa a system and method of generating, by the electronic device, hot encodings for the context of the scene, the context of the user and each object class; and determining a cross product of the hot encodings, as set forth above applying Sert and Yu, in order to improve feature prediction for context based recommendation effectively implementing the AI system utilizing the hot encoding and cross-products and thereby increasing system effectiveness and user experience.
Claim 14 recites limitations similar in scope with limitations of claim 8 and therefore rejected under the same rationale.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure (see attached 892).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SULTANA MARCIA ZALALEE whose telephone number is (571)270-1411. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 8:00am-4:30pm.
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, Kent Chang can be reached on (571)272-7667. 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.
/Sultana M Zalalee/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2614