DETAILED ACTION
Introduction
1. This office action is in response to Applicant’s submission filed on 2/25/2026. Claims 1-20 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 .
Response to Amendment
3. The amendment and arguments filed 2/25/2026 have been entered and fully considered. With regard to the rejections of the claims under 35 USC 103, the arguments presented are rendered mott by the new rejection based on US Pat. App. Pub. No. 20200175983 (Goodman).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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.
5. Claims 1-7, 11-17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over US Pat. App. Pub. No. 20230029088 (Decrop et al., hereinafter “De”) in view of US Pat. No. 20210065682 (Li et al., hereinafter “Li”), US Pat. App. Pub. No. 20180336894 (Graham et al., hereinafter “Graham”), and US Pat. App. Pub. No. 20200175983 (Goodman).
With regard to Claim 1, De describes:
A server computer system comprising:
a communications module; (Paragraph 38, communications unit 110)
a processor coupled with the communications module; (Paragraph 38, processor 104) and
a memory (Paragraph 38, memory 106) coupled to the processor and storing processor-executable instructions which, when executed by the processor, configure the processor to:
engage an artificial intelligence (AI) engine to: (Paragraph 67, learning model 416 can be a neural network)
analyze voice data to identify a string of commands; and (Paragraph 64, application 414 receives and analyzes voice commands)
generate, prior to receiving additional input, at least one recommendation based on the string of commands; (Paragraph 66, learning model 416 provides a recommendation)
send, via the communications module to the first device, a signal causing the first device to output a message that includes the at least one recommendation; (Paragraph 61, commands are received from other devices 420 and 430. Paragraph 66, the recommendation can be displayed on device 430, after it is sent to that device.)
De does not explicitly describe “the at least one recommendation generated to pre-emptively reduce a number of transmissions exchanged between the server computer system and a first device during an active voice session;
receive, via the communications module and from the first device, a signal that includes voice data for activating the at least one recommendation; and
activate the at least one recommendation, the at least one recommendation causing the first device, in response to receipt of a first command, to automatically output data based on a second command.”
However, Li describes “receive, via the communications module and from the first device, a signal that includes voice data for activating the at least one recommendation; and (Paragraph 121 of Li describes that a recommendation is implemented when a voice command accepting it is received.)
activate the at least one recommendation.” (Paragraph 121 of Li describes that a recommendation is implemented when a voice command accepting it is received.)
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 voice acceptance as described by Li into the method of De to apply AI to implementing recommendations, as described in paragraph 121 of Li.
De in view of Li does not explicitly describe “the at least one recommendation generated to pre-emptively reduce a number of transmissions exchanged between the server computer system and a first device during an active voice session” or “the at least one recommendation causing the first device, in response to receipt of a first command, to automatically output data based on a second command.”
However, Graham describes “the at least one recommendation generated to pre-emptively reduce a number of transmissions exchanged between the server computer system and a first device during an active voice session.” (Paragraph 24 describes that the device provides recommendations to reduce the number of inputs needed from the user, which would reduce communication needed between the server and the user device.)
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 voice acceptance as described by Graham into the method of De in view of Li to reduce user inputs needed, leading to fewer mistakes and power usage, as described in paragraph 24 of Graham.
De in view of Li and Graham does not explicitly describe “the at least one recommendation causing the first device, in response to receipt of a first command, to automatically output data based on a second command.”
However, Goodman describes “the at least one recommendation causing the first device, in response to receipt of a first command, to automatically output data based on a second command.” (Paragraph 19 of Goodman describes that multiple additional commands may be performed by a virtual assistant without those commands being given by the user based on the user history of making commands.)
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 automated commands as described by Goodman into the method of De in view of Li and Graham to recommend useful and previously used commands to a user, as described in paragraph 19 of Goodman.
With regard to Claim 2, De does not explicitly describes this subject matter. However, Li describes “analyze, in real-time, voice data received from the first device to determine a trigger for the at least one recommendation; (Paragraph 121 of Li describes that a recommendation is implemented when a voice command accepting it is received.) and
send, via the communications module and to the first device, a signal causing the first device to output a message that includes data based on the at least one recommendation.” (Paragraph 121 of Li describes that a recommendation is implemented when a voice command accepting it is received.)
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 voice acceptance as described by Li into the method of De to apply AI to implementing recommendations, as described in paragraph 121 of Li.
With regard to Claim 3, De describes “obtain the data based on the at least one recommendation from at least one data record.” Paragraph 65 describes that the model 416 uses a historical corpus.
With regard to Claim 4, De describes “the voice data includes historical voice data based on one or more completed sessions with the first device.” Paragraph 65 describes that the model 416 uses user feedback, i.e. from previous sessions with the user.
With regard to Claim 5, De in view of Li and Graham does not explicitly describes this subject matter. However, Goodman describes “the second command is output without prompting for additional voice input after receipt of the first command.” (Paragraph 19 of Goodman describes that multiple additional commands may be performed by a virtual assistant without those commands being given by the user based on the user history of making commands, and without further prompting by the assistant.)
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 automated commands as described by Goodman into the method of De in view of Li and Graham to recommend useful and previously used commands to a user, as described in paragraph 19 of Goodman.
With regard to Claim 6, De does not explicitly describes this subject matter. However, Li describes “the recommendation includes activating a shortcut for causing the server computer system to perform one or more operations.” (Paragraph 119 of Li describes that an executable operation is performed when the recommendation is accepted.)
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 voice acceptance as described by Li into the method of De to apply AI to implementing recommendations, as described in paragraph 121 of Li.
With regard to Claim 7, De does not explicitly describes this subject matter. However, Li describes “send, via the communications module and to the first device, a signal causing the first device to output a message requesting that an intent or command be defined to activate the shortcut; and (Paragraph 118 describes that a recommendation to perform an executable function is sent to a user.)
receive, via the communications module and from the first device, a signal that includes voice data defining the intent or the command for activating the shortcut.” (Paragraph 119 of Li describes that an executable operation is performed when the recommendation is accepted.)
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 voice acceptance as described by Li into the method of De to apply AI to implementing recommendations, as described in paragraph 121 of Li.
With respect to Claims 11-17, method Claim 11 and server Claim 1 are related as a server programmed to perform the same method, with each claimed system function corresponding to each claimed method step. Accordingly, Claims 11-17 are similarly rejected under the same rationale as applied above with respect to Claims 1-7.
With respect to Claim 20, computer readable medium Claim 20 and server Claim 1 are related as a computer readable medium programmed to perform the same functions as the server, with each claimed medium function corresponding to each claimed server function. Accordingly, Claim 20 is similarly rejected under the same rationale as applied above with respect to Claim 1.
6. Claims 8, 9, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over De in view of Li, Graham, and Goodman and further in view of US Pat. App. Pub. No. 11755756 (Cline et al., hereinafter “Cli”)
With respect to Claim 8, De in view of Li, Graham, and Goodman does not explicitly describe this subject matter. However, Cli describes “determine that data to be output by the first device includes sensitive data; (Column 2, lines 52-54 describes that sensitive data can be detected in input data.)
send, to the first device, a signal causing the first device to output a message that includes a request for confirmation that the output of the sensitive data is to be sent to the first device or sent to a second device that is different than the first device; (Column 2, lines 8-34 describes that a message can be sent by a third party application to the device 138 that sensitive data is to be sent to the first device in response.)
receive, via the communications module and from the first device, a signal that includes voice data requesting that the sensitive data be sent to the second device that is different than the first device; and (Column 2, lines 8-34 describes that the first device 138 can send a message to the third party application requesting that sensitive data be sent to the third part application.)
send, via the communications module and to the second device, a signal that includes the sensitive data.” (Column 2, lines 8-34 describes that the first device 138 can send sensitive data to the third party application.)
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 sensitive data confirmation as described by Cli into the method of De in view of Li, Graham, and Goodman to carefully control sensitive data, as described in Column 2, lines 8-34 of Cli.
With respect to Claim 9, De in view of Li, Graham, and Goodman does not explicitly describe this subject matter. However, Cli describes “the sensitive data is sent to the second device via text message.” (Column 3, line 66 to column 4, line 3 describes that the sensitive text sent to the third party application can be encrypted.)
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 sensitive data encryption as described by Cli into the method of De in view of Li and Graham to carefully control sensitive data, as described in Column 2, lines 8-34 of Cli.
With respect to Claims 18 and 19, method Claim 11 and server Claim 1 are related as a server programmed to perform the same method, with each claimed system function corresponding to each claimed method step. Accordingly, Claims 18 and 19 are similarly rejected under the same rationale as applied above with respect to Claims 8 and 9.
7. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over De in view of Li, Graham, and Goodman and further in view of US Pat. App. Pub. No. 20140358535 (Lee et al., hereinafter “Lee”)
With respect to Claim 10, De in view of Li, Graham, and Goodman does not explicitly describe this subject matter. However, Lee describes “receive, via the communications module and from the first device, a signal that includes authentication information; (Paragraph 102 describes receiving a voice sample for authentication.)
identify, based on the authentication information, one or more accounts; (Paragraph 102 describes identifying the user from the voice sample.) and
obtain, from a database, the voice data based on the one or more accounts.” (Paragraph 104 describes retrieving user data based on the user identification.)
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 authentication as described by Lee into the method of Du in view of Li, Graham, and Goodman to identify users, as described in paragraph 104 of Lee.
Conclusion
8. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Pat. No. 20180144744 (Badarinath) also describes a device that provides a user multiple commands based on a single entered command. (Para 47)
9. 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.
10. 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
/BHAVESH M MEHTA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2656