DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-19 and 21 are pending for examination.
Claims 1-19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103.
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.
Claim(s) 1-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Limp et al. (U.S. 2013/0347018 hereinafter Limp) in view of Patil et al. (U.S. 9,471,624 hereinafter Patil).
As Claim 1, Limp teaches a computer-implemented method, comprising:
detecting an assistant invocation while a first application is running in a foreground of a client device (Limp (¶0027 line 3-5 and 20-37, fig. 3), system recognizes a piece of musing playing with the current content. Notification is provided to user based on user history);
retrieving by an automated assistant and from the first application running in the foreground of the client device, one or more suggestion-generation criteria for the first application (Limp (¶0025 line 8-11, ¶0027 line 3-5 and 20-37, fig. 3), criteria include user history, user preferences and purchase history …);
determining, by the automated assistant and based on the one or more suggestion- generation criteria retrieved from the first application, the one or more suggestions that are to be presented to a user of the client device in response to the assistant invocation (Limp (¶0028 line 3-7, fig. 3 item 306), notification 306 is displayed over media content indicating the name and artist),
wherein determining the one or more suggestions based on the one or more suggestion-generation criteria retrieved from the first application, is based on the first application being running in the foreground when the assistant invocation is detected (Limp (¶0026 line 14-16, system allows user to continue to view the content and access supplemental content at the same time. Limp (¶0027 line 3-5 and 20-37, fig. 3), system recognizes a piece of musing playing with an active program); and
causing the one or more suggestions to be displayed in response to the assistant invocation and within an overlay displayed over a user interface of the first application (Limp (¶0028 line 3-7, fig. 3 item 306), notification 306 is displayed over media content indicating the name and artist).
Limp does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the one or more suggestion-generation criteria are:
transmitted by the first application to the automated assistant,
defined by the first application and
include a rule, defined by the first the first application, that identifies one or more additional applications allowed by the first application as a source for the one or more suggestions that are to be presented via the first application, the one or more additional applications being different from the first application and being installed at the client device along with the first application
includes utilizing a given additional application, of the one or more additional applications allowed by the first application as a source for one or more suggestions identified by the rule, in determining a given suggestion, of the one or more suggestions,
wherein utilizing the given additional application in determining the given suggestion is responsive to given additional application being among the one or more additional applications identified by the rule retrieved from the first application
Patil teaches:
wherein the one or more suggestion-generation criteria are:
transmitted by the first application to the automated assistant (Patil (col. 11 line 28-32, fig. 4 item 410), “a user device 300 sends a list of applications 322 installed on the user device 300 to the recommendation server 200, along with the user-specific attributes 326 of each application 322 identified in the list.”),
defined by the first application (Patil (col. 11 line 28-32, fig. 4 item 410), “a user device 300 sends a list of applications 322 installed on the user device 300 to the recommendation server 200, along with the user-specific attributes 326 of each application 322 identified in the list.”) and
include a rule, defined by the first the first application, that identifies one or more additional applications allowed by the first application as a source for the one or more suggestions that are to be presented via the first application, the one or more additional applications being different from the first application and being installed at the client device along with the first application (Patil (col. 11 line 28-32, fig. 4 item 410), “a user device 300 sends a list of applications 322 installed on the user device 300 to the recommendation server 200, along with the user-specific attributes 326 of each application 322 identified in the list.”)
includes utilizing a given additional application, of the one or more additional applications allowed by the first application as a source for one or more suggestions identified by the rule, in determining a given suggestion, of the one or more suggestions (Patil (col. 11 line 39-41, fig. 4 item 412), “the recommendation module 220 determines whether to recommend deletion of the application 322 based on at least one of the user-specific attributes 326.”),
wherein utilizing the given additional application in determining the given suggestion is responsive to given additional application being among the one or more additional applications identified by the rule retrieved from the first application (Patil (col. 11 line 57-60), “the recommendation module 220 calculates a score of the application 322 based on the user-specific attributes 326 and the application attributes 286 of the application 322”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify identification service of Lim instead be rule based recommendation system of Patil, with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation would be to conveniently allow “the recommendation server 200 provides the deletion
recommendations to the user device 300” (Patil (col. 11 line 26-27)) (Teaching Suggestion Motivation).
As Claim 2, besides Claim 1, Limp in view of Patil teaches wherein retrieving the one or more suggestion-generation criteria from the first application is in response to detecting the assistant invocation (Limp (¶0027 line 3-5 and 20-37, fig. 3), system recognizes a piece of musing playing with the current content) and is in response to the first application being running in the foreground when the assistant invocation is detected (Limp (¶0027 line 3-5 and 20-37, fig. 3), system recognizes a piece of musing playing with an active program).
As Claim 3, besides Claim 2, Limp in view of Patil teaches wherein the one or more suggestion-generation criteria for the first application are specific to a state of the first application (Limp (¶0027 line 3-5 and 20-37, fig. 3), system recognizes a piece of musing playing with an active program) and are provided by the first application responsive to the state being a current state of the first application at a time of the assistant invocation (Limp (¶0028 line 3-7, fig. 3 item 306), notification 306 is displayed over media content indicating the name and artist).
As Claim 4, besides Claim 1, Limp in view of Patil teaches wherein retrieving the one or more suggestion-generation criteria from the first application comprises: providing, via an operating system of the client device, a suggestion-generation criteria request to the first application (Limp (¶0027 line 3-5 and 20-37, fig. 3), system recognizes a piece of musing playing with the current content. Notification is provided to user based on user history); and receiving the one or more suggestion-generation criteria via the operating system and responsive to the suggestion-generation criteria request (Limp (¶0025 line 8-11, ¶0027 line 3-5 and 20-37, fig. 3), criteria include user history, user preferences and purchase history …).
As Claim 5, besides Claim 1, Limp in view of Patil teaches further comprising: receiving a user selection of a particular suggestion, of the one or more suggestions displayed within the overlay, and in response to receiving the user selection of the particular suggestion (Limp (¶0026 line 3-14), user selects supplement content):
causing a particular action corresponding to the particular suggestion to be performed (Limp (¶0026 line 2-14), supplement content is pushed to secondary device), and
causing the overlay that displays the one or more suggestions to no longer be displayed over the user interface of the first application (Limp (¶0026 line 14-16, system allows user to continue to view the content and access supplemental content at the same time.).
As Claim 6, besides Claim 1, Limp in view of Patil teaches wherein detecting the assistant invocation comprises:
receiving, via the first application, an indication of a user selection of a selectable element, for suggesting one or more actions, that is displayed at a user interface of the first application (Limp (¶0033), user might be able to toggle supplemental content on and off during playback), and detecting the assistant invocation in response to receiving the indication of the user selection of the selectable element (Limp (¶0034 line 1-4), user might turn on supplemental information at a certain time).
As Claim 7, besides Claim 1, Limp in view of Patil teaches wherein the one or more suggestion-generation criteria includes: retrieving the one or more suggestion-generation criteria (Limp (¶0038 line 9-19), reverse metadata lookup) using a package name of the first application (Limp (¶0028 line 3-7, fig. 3 item 306), notification 306 is displayed over media content indicating the name and artist).
As Claim 8, besides Claim 1, Limp in view of Patil teaches wherein the one or more suggestion-generation criteria includes a rule that defines one or more applications or actions that are not allowed by the first application (Limp (¶0027 line 3-5 and 20-37, fig. 3), system recognizes a piece of musing playing with the current content. Notification is provided if the user is interested).
As Claim 9, the Claim is rejected for the same reasons as Claim 1.
As Claim 10, the Claim is rejected for the same reasons as Claim 7.
As Claim 11, besides Claim 9, Limp in view of Patil teaches wherein the foreground context of the client device includes content displayed via the user interface of the first application (Limp (¶0027 line 3-5 and 20-37, fig. 3), system recognizes a piece of musing playing with the current content).
As Claim 12, besides Claim 9, Limp in view of Patil teaches wherein determining the one or more suggestions to be presented to the user of the client device comprises:
retrieving, via the automated assistant and based on the retrieved foreground context of the client device indicating that the first application is running in the foreground when the assistant invocation is detected (Limp (¶0026 line 14-16, system allows user to continue to view the content and access supplemental content at the same time. Limp (¶0027 line 3-5 and 20-37, fig. 3), system recognizes a piece of musing playing with an active program),
automated assistant data that describes suggestion-generation criteria specific to the first application (Limp (¶0027 line 3-5 and 20-37, fig. 3), system recognizes a piece of musing playing with an active program), and
determining, based on the retrieved foreground context of the client device and the suggestion-generation criteria specific to the first application, the one or more suggestions (Limp (¶0028 line 3-7, fig. 3 item 306), notification 306 is displayed over media content indicating the name and artist).
As Claim 13, besides Claim 12, Limp in view of Patil teaches wherein the suggestion-generation criteria include a rule that defines one or more applications or actions that are not allowed by the first application (Limp (¶0027 line 3-5 and 20-37, fig. 3), system recognizes a piece of musing playing with the current content. Notification is provided if the user is interested).
As Claim 14, besides Claim 12, Limp in view of Patil teaches wherein the suggestion-generation criteria generated by the first application include: package names of one or more additional applications that are different from the first application (Limp (¶0028 line 3-7, fig. 3 item 306), notification 306 is displayed over media content indicating the name and artist).
As Claim 15, besides Claim 14, Limp in view of Patil teaches wherein determining the one or more suggestions to be presented to the user of the client device comprises:
retrieving, via the automated assistant, automated assistant data that describes one or more actions associated with the one or more additional applications (Limp (¶0027 line 3-5 and 20-37, fig. 3), system recognizes a piece of musing playing with the current content), and
determining, based on the foreground context of the client device and the one or more actions associated with the one or more additional applications, the one or more suggestions (Limp (¶0027 line 3-5 and 20-37, fig. 3), system recognizes a piece of musing playing with the current content. Notification is provided if the user is interested).
As Claim 16, besides Claim 12, Limp in view of Patil teaches wherein the suggestion-generation criteria specific to the first application include: one or more actions performable via the automated assistant (Limp (¶0028 line 3-7, fig. 3 item 306), notification 306 is displayed over media content indicating the name and artist).
As Claim 17, besides Claim 12, Limp in view of Patil teaches wherein the suggestion-generation criteria specific to the first application include: one or more actions performable via one or more applications that are different from the first application (Limp (¶0028 line 3-7, fig. 3 item 306), notification 306 is displayed over media content indicating the name and artist).
As Claim 18, Limp teaches a system, comprising: one or more processors (Limp (¶0054 line 4), processor); and one or more memories storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more:
The rest of the limitations are rejected for the same reasons as Claim 1.
As Claim 19, the Claim is rejected for the same reasons as Claim 2.
As Claim 21, besides Claim 1, Limp in view of Patil teaches wherein retrieving the one or more suggestion- generation criteria for the first application comprises:
providing, via an operating system of the client device, a suggestion-generation criteria request to the first application (Patil (col. 11 line 28-32, fig. 4 item 410), “a user device 300 sends a list of applications 322 installed on the user device 300 to the recommendation server 200, along with the user-specific attributes 326 of each application 322 identified in the list.”); and
receiving, via the operating system and responsive to the suggestion-generation criteria request, the one or more suggestion-generation criteria transmitted by the first application to the automated assistant (Patil (col. 11 line 28-32, fig. 4 item 410), “a user device 300 sends a list of applications 322 installed on the user device 300 to the recommendation server 200, along with the user-specific attributes 326 of each application 322 identified in the list.”).
Response to Arguments
35 U.S.C. §103 rejections:
As Claim 1, 9 and 8, Applicants argue that current amendment(s) overcome cited references (third paragraph of page 10 in the remarks).
Applicants’ arguments are moot because new reference Patil teaches the limitation(s).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kolodziej (U.S. 2013/0337838) disclose a system/method to recommend local software on client device.
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 NHAT HUY T NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7333. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 12:00-8:00 EST.
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, Viker Lamardo can be reached on 571-270-5871. 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.
/NHAT HUY T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2147
Prosecution Insights