DETAILED ACTION
Introduction
This office action is in response to applicant’s amendment filed 4/1/26. Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 10-16, 18, 19 and 21-26 are currently pending and have been examined. Applicant’s IDS have been considered. There is no claim to foreign priority.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed 4/1/26, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of at least one of the previously cited prior art, and further in view of Koukoumidis et al. (Koukoumidis, US 2025/09371860).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
More specifically, claim 8 depends on cancelled claim 7, which renders the claim indefinite.
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, 2, 4, 5 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tuckfield et al. (Tuckfield, US 11,068,477) in view of Kato et al. (Kato, US 2019/0108836) and further in view of Shima (US 2015/0340025) and further in view of Koukoumidis et al. (Koukoumidis, US 2025/09371860).
As per claim 1, Tuckfield teaches a system configured to communicate with a chatbot application, comprising:
at least one smart device, comprising a processor, the at least one smart device configured to communicate with the chatbot application that includes computer-executable code stored in non- volatile memory (Fig. 2, his user voice query, C.3 lines 11-35, chatbot, C.2 lines 22-42-his smart glasses, smart phone, as at least one smart device, in communication with the chatbot application, C.2 lines 58-64-chatbot software application discussion);
wherein the at least one smart device is configured to:
record a first audio data or signal associated with at least one voice query (ibid-see input of voice into the device, smart glasses, discussion and corresponding Fig. 2);
provide the first audio data or signal associated with the at least one voice query to the chatbot application, the chatbot application configured to convert the first audio data or signal to a first text data or signal associated with the at least one voice query (ibid, C.3 lines 15-25-his speech to text, conversion by the chatbot application), [even when the at least one smart device is in a locked state or a standby mode, such that the at least one smart device remains in the locked state or standby mode and user interaction with an interface of the at least one smart device to unlock or wake the at least one smart device is not required for the chatbot application to operate];
[wherein the chatbot application is configured to operate or communicate with a plurality of chatbots and to select, prioritize and use multiple chatbots and prioritization settings;]
[wherein the chatbot application is configured to receive response tet data from the multiple chatbots;]
wherein the chatbot application is configured [vary an amount of information of the response text data and integrate the response text data based on the prioritization settings to] to generate a second text data or signal associated with a response to the at least one voice query (ibid-C.4 lines 50-67, Fig. 2-his chatbot, and corresponding text answer, based on chatbot result);
[wherein the chatbot application is configured to convert the second text data or signal to a second voice data or signal associated with the response, and provide the second voice data or signal to the at least one smart device; and
emit sound based on the second voice data or signal.]
Tuckfield lacks explicitly teaching that which Kato teaches, wherein the chatbot application is configured to operate or communicate with a plurality of chatbots and to select at least one chatbot from the plurality of chatbots based on the first text data or signal (Fig. 1, items 40, 30-as his plurality of chatbots, and corresponding selection of the text-only chatbot based on first text data or signal, see paragraphs [0067-0068]-his selection of a particular text-only chatbot based on the first text data or signal);
wherein the chatbot application is configured to convert the second text data or signal to a second voice data or signal associated with the response, and provide the second voice data or signal to the at least one smart device (ibid, see also paragraph [0069]-his text to speech data synthesis); and
emit sound based on the second voice data or signal (ibid-his output speech).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the linguistics art, before the effective filing date of the invention, as all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (computer implemented techniques and algorithms combining processes and steps in natural language processing), in view of the teachings of Tuckfield and Kato to combine the prior art element of an audio input smart device in communication with a chatbot as taught by Tuckfield with a selection of a chatbot from a plurality of chatbots and audio output to a device as taught by Kato as each element performs the same function as it does separately, as the combination would yield predictable results, KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US. -- 82 USPQ2nd 1385 (2007), wherein the predictable result would be allowing particular chatbot(s) relating to an input intent and domain to be selected, and a text response generated, and output in audio form (ibid-Kato).
Tuckfield with Kato lack explicitly teaching that which Shima teaches, provide the first audio data or signal associated with the at least one voice query to the chatbot application, the chatbot application configured to convert the first audio data or signal to a first text data or signal associated with the at least one voice query, even when the at least one smart device is in a locked state or a standby mode, such that the at least one smart device remains in the locked state or standby mode and user interaction with an interface of the at least one smart device to unlock or wake the at least one smart device is not required for the chatbot application to operate (paragraphs [0037, 0078, 0079, 0023, 0003]-his “smart phones, tablets” etc., and corresponding device while in a locked state, receives and captures a user input, and processes the input, including speech to text conversion, while in the locked state, thus enabling the smart device to operate without user interaction with the interface to wake-up or unlock the device, paragraphs [0044, 0045, 0077-0079], explicitly state, that while in the locked state, wherein the device has not been unlocked, the application is still executed. The data that has been entered into the system is not wasted, although the state of the device remains locked. The user is still able, while the device is in a locked state, execute the application).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the linguistics art, before the effective filing date of the invention, as all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (computer implemented techniques and algorithms combining processes and steps in natural language processing), in view of the teachings of Tuckfield and Kato and Shima to combine the prior art element of an audio input smart device in communication with a chatbot as taught by Tuckfield with a selection of a chatbot from a plurality of chatbots and audio output to a device as taught by Kato with while in a locked state, allowing a smart device to process data, to execute an application and task, while the device remains in the locked state or standby mode as taught by Shima as each element performs the same function as it does separately, as the combination would yield predictable results, KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US. -- 82 USPQ2nd 1385 (2007), wherein the predictable result would be allowing particular chatbot(s) relating to an input intent and domain to be selected, and a text response generated, and output in audio form, via conversation while in a locked mode, allowing a user to bypass several steps in unlocking a device or waking up the device via user interaction on an interface (ibid-Kato, Shima).
The above combination lacks teaching that which Koukoumidis teaches, [wherein the chatbot application is configured to operate or communicate with a plurality of chatbots and to select, prioritize and use multiple chatbots from the plurality of chatbots based on the first text data or signal and prioritization settings (paragraphs [0065-0072]-as his prioritized agents as chatbots hereinafter, as they include conversational/dialog agents, with respect to response generation, each separate agent, as chatbots, generating their own separate response, an a selected group of chatbots are prioritized and used to generate individual responses).
wherein the chatbot application is configured to receive response text data from the multiple chatbots (ibid-the responses generated from each chatbot);
wherein the chatbot application is configured vary an amount of information of the response text data and integrate the response text data based on the prioritization settings to generate a second text data or signal associated with a response to the at least one voice query (ibid-each agent’s response is rated, and varied based on relevance, rankings, score and other factors regarding the response and prioritization of each agent).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the linguistics art, before the effective filing date of the invention, as all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (computer implemented techniques and algorithms combining processes and steps in natural language processing), in view of the teachings of Tuckfield and Kato and Shima and Koukoumidis to combine the prior art element of an audio input smart device in communication with a chatbot as taught by Tuckfield with a selection of a chatbot from a plurality of chatbots and audio output to a device as taught by Kato with while in a locked state, allowing a smart device to process data, to execute an application and task, while the device remains in the locked state or standby mode as taught by Shima with using a multi-perspective response generation system as taught by Koukoumidisas each element performs the same function as it does separately, as the combination would yield predictable results, KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US. -- 82 USPQ2nd 1385 (2007), wherein the predictable result would be allowing particular chatbots, prioritized and having a multi-perspective response generated, relating to an input intent and domain, and output in audio form, via conversation while in a locked mode, allowing a user to bypass several steps in unlocking a device or waking up the device via user interaction on an interface (ibid-Kato, Shima, Koukoumidis).
As per claim 2, Tuckfield with Kato with Shima with Koukoumidis make obvious the system of claim 1, wherein the at least one smart device includes a pair of smart glasses configured to be paired with a computing device (ibid-see claim 1, Tuckfield “smart glasses” discussion, fig.1, his smart glasses paired with a computing device).
As per claims 4 and 15, Tuckfield with Kato with Shima make with Koukoumidis obvious the system of claim 1, wherein the at least one smart device is at least one selected from the group of a pair of smart glasses, a pair of headphones, a smartphone, a smart tablet, a computer, a wearable smart device, and combinations thereof (ibid, see Tuckfield, C.2 lines 29-38-as his smart devices, Fig. 1, as the selected devices for communication with a computing device).
As per claim 5, Tuckfield with Kato with Shima with Koukoumidis make obvious the system of claim 1, wherein the plurality of chatbots is a plurality of text-only chatbots that each lack an audio interface (ibid-Kato, Fig. 1, each chatbot, text-only interface, as similarly motivated in combination, with respect to communicating via text-based data).
As per claim 13, Tuckfield with Kato with Shima with Koukoumidis make obvious the system of claim 1, wherein converting the first audio data or signal to the first text data or signal includes using a graphical user interface displayed to a user by the at least one smart device without using an audio assistant of the at least one smart device (ibid-Tuckfield, C.2 lines 26-33, C.3 lines 16-25, Figs. 2, 5-his speech to text conversion, and corresponding display to a user, as seen in Fig. 5, wherein the chatbot front-end is without an audio assistant of the at least one device).
As per claim 14, claim 14 sets forth limitations similar to claim 1 and is thus rejected under similar reasons and rationale, wherein the system is deemed to embody the method, such that Tuckfield with Kato with Shima with Koukoumidis makes obvious a method for using at least one smart device configured to communicate with a chatbot application, comprising:
providing the at least one smart device, comprising a processor, configured to communicate with the chatbot application that includes computer-executable code stored in non-volatile memory (Tuckfield, Fig. 10, C.1 lines 334-63-see his method discussion, ibid-see claim 1, corresponding and similar limitation); recording a first audio data or signal associated with at least one voice query (ibid-see claim 1, corresponding and similar limitation); providing the first audio data or signal associated with the at least one voice query to the chatbot application, the chatbot application configured to receive and convert the first audio data or signal to a first text data or signal associated with the at least one voice query (ibid), even when the at least one smart device is in a locked state or a standby mode, such that the at least one smart device remains in the locked state or standby mode and user interaction with an interface of the at least one smart device to unlock or wake the at least one smart device is not required for the chatbot application to operate (ibid); wherein the chatbot application is configured to operate or communicate with a plurality of chatbots and to select, prioritize and use multiple chatbots from the plurality of chatbots based on the first text data or signal and prioritization settings (ibid); wherein the chatbot application is configured to receive response text data back from the multiple chatbots (ibid); wherein the chatbot application is configured to vary an amount of information of the response text data and integrate the response text data based on the prioritization settings to generate a second text data or signal associated with a response to the at least one voice query (ibid); wherein the chatbot application is configured to convert the second text data or signal to a second voice data or signal associated with the response, and provide the second voice data or signal to the at least one smart device (ibid); and emitting sound based on the second voice data or signal (ibid).
As per claims 21 and 23, Tuckfield with Kato with Shima make with Koukoumidis obvious the system of claim 1, Koukoumidis further teaches that which the others lack, wherein the chatbot application is configured to present the second text data in short form (ibid-paragraph [0072]-his “narrower” form for response result).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the linguistics art, before the effective filing date of the invention, as all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (computer implemented techniques and algorithms combining processes and steps in natural language processing), in view of the teachings of Tuckfield and Kato and Shima and Koukoumidis to combine the prior art element of an audio input smart device in communication with a chatbot as taught by Tuckfield with a selection of a chatbot from a plurality of chatbots and audio output to a device as taught by Kato with while in a locked state, allowing a smart device to process data, to execute an application and task, while the device remains in the locked state or standby mode as taught by Shima with using a multi-perspective response generation system in long/short form as taught by Koukoumidisas each element performs the same function as it does separately, as the combination would yield predictable results, KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US. -- 82 USPQ2nd 1385 (2007), wherein the predictable result would be allowing particular chatbots, prioritized and having a multi-perspective response generated in long/short, relating to an input intent and domain, and output in audio form, via conversation while in a locked mode, allowing a user to bypass several steps in unlocking a device or waking up the device via user interaction on an interface (ibid-Kato, Shima, Koukoumidis).
As per claims 22 and 24, Tuckfield with Kato with Shima make with Koukoumidis obvious the system of claim 1, Koukoumidis further teaches that which the others lack, wherein the chatbot application is configured to present the second text data in long form (ibid-paragraph [0072]-his “longer” form for response result).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the linguistics art, before the effective filing date of the invention, as all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (computer implemented techniques and algorithms combining processes and steps in natural language processing), in view of the teachings of Tuckfield and Kato and Shima and Koukoumidis to combine the prior art element of an audio input smart device in communication with a chatbot as taught by Tuckfield with a selection of a chatbot from a plurality of chatbots and audio output to a device as taught by Kato with while in a locked state, allowing a smart device to process data, to execute an application and task, while the device remains in the locked state or standby mode as taught by Shima with using a multi-perspective response generation system in long/short form as taught by Koukoumidisas each element performs the same function as it does separately, as the combination would yield predictable results, KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US. -- 82 USPQ2nd 1385 (2007), wherein the predictable result would be allowing particular chatbots, prioritized and having a multi-perspective response generated in long/short, relating to an input intent and domain, and output in audio form, via conversation while in a locked mode, allowing a user to bypass several steps in unlocking a device or waking up the device via user interaction on an interface (ibid-Kato, Shima, Koukoumidis).
Claim(s) 18, 19, 25 and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tuckfield et al. (Tuckfield, US 11,068,477) in view of Kato et al. (Kato, US 2019/0108836) in view of Shima in view of Koukoumidis, as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Bates-Maricle (Bates, 2024/0289113).
As per claim 18, claim 18 sets forth limitations similar to claims 1-3 and is thus rejected under similar reasons and rationale, wherein Tuckfield with Kato with Shima with Koukoumidis with Bates makes obvious a system configured to communicate with a chatbot application, comprising (ibid-see claim 1, corresponding and similar limitation):
at least one paired device, comprising a processor, the at least one paired device configured to communicate with the chatbot application that includes computer-executable code stored in non- volatile memory (ibid-see claims 1 and 2, corresponding and similar limitations);
wherein the at least one paired device is configured to:
record a first audio data or signal associated with at least one voice query (ibid-see claim 1, corresponding and similar limitation);
provide the first audio data or signal associated with the at least one voice query to the chatbot application, the chatbot application configured to receive and convert the first audio data or signal to a first text data or signal associated with the at least one voice query (ibid), even when the at least one smart device is in a locked state or a standby mode, such that the at least one smart device remains in the locked state or standby mode and user interaction with an interface of the at least one smart device to unlock or wake the at least one smart device is not required for the chatbot application to operate (ibid);
wherein the chatbot application is configured to operate or communicate with a plurality of chatbots and to select, prioritize and use multiple chatbots (ibid), including at least ChatGPT (ibid-see claim 3, corresponding and similar limitation), based on the first text data or signal and prioritization settings (ibid-see claim 1, corresponding and similar limitation);
wherein the chatbot application is configured to vary an amount of information of the response text data and integrate the response text data based on the prioritization settings to generate a second text data or signal associated with a response to the at least one voice query (ibid-see claim 1, corresponding and similar limitation, ibid-see above ChatGPT discussion);
wherein the chatbot application is configured to convert the second text data or signal to a second voice data or signal associated with the response (ibid-see claim 1, corresponding and similar limitation), and provide the second voice data or signal to the at least one paired device (ibid-see claims 1 and 2, corresponding and similar limitation, as applied to the at least one smart device, as paired in claim 2); and emit sound based on the second voice data or signal (ibid-see claim 1, corresponding and similar limitation); wherein the at least one paired device includes a first device that is a pair of smart glasses configured to be paired with a second device (ibid-see claims 1 and 2, corresponding and similar limitation).
As per claim 19, claim 19 sets forth limitations similar to claims 1-3 and 5 and is thus rejected under similar reasons and rationale, wherein Tuckfield with Kato with Shima with Koukoumidis with Bates make obvious the system of claim 18, wherein:
the plurality of chatbots further includes at least one additional text-only chatbot (ibid-see claim 5, corresponding and similar limitation); and generating the second text data or signal associated with the response to the at least one voice query includes using ChatGPT and the at least one additional text-only chatbot (ibid-see claims 1, 3 and 5, generating response discussion, using the text-only chatbot, of Kato, and the chatbot as the ChatGPT bot of claim 3, as similarly motivated and combined).
As per claim 25, Tuckfield with Kato with Shima make with Koukoumidis obvious the system of claim 18, Koukoumidis further teaches that which the others lack, wherein the chatbot application is configured to present the second text data in short form (ibid-paragraph [0072]-his “narrower” form for response result).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the linguistics art, before the effective filing date of the invention, as all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (computer implemented techniques and algorithms combining processes and steps in natural language processing), in view of the teachings of Tuckfield and Kato and Shima and Koukoumidis to combine the prior art element of an audio input smart device in communication with a chatbot as taught by Tuckfield with a selection of a chatbot from a plurality of chatbots and audio output to a device as taught by Kato with while in a locked state, allowing a smart device to process data, to execute an application and task, while the device remains in the locked state or standby mode as taught by Shima with using a multi-perspective response generation system in long/short form as taught by Koukoumidisas each element performs the same function as it does separately, as the combination would yield predictable results, KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US. -- 82 USPQ2nd 1385 (2007), wherein the predictable result would be allowing particular chatbots, prioritized and having a multi-perspective response generated in long/short, relating to an input intent and domain, and output in audio form, via conversation while in a locked mode, allowing a user to bypass several steps in unlocking a device or waking up the device via user interaction on an interface (ibid-Kato, Shima, Koukoumidis).
As per claims 26, Tuckfield with Kato with Shima make with Koukoumidis obvious the system of claim 18, Koukoumidis further teaches that which the others lack, wherein the chatbot application is configured to present the second text data in long form (ibid-paragraph [0072]-his “longer” form for response result).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the linguistics art, before the effective filing date of the invention, as all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (computer implemented techniques and algorithms combining processes and steps in natural language processing), in view of the teachings of Tuckfield and Kato and Shima and Koukoumidis to combine the prior art element of an audio input smart device in communication with a chatbot as taught by Tuckfield with a selection of a chatbot from a plurality of chatbots and audio output to a device as taught by Kato with while in a locked state, allowing a smart device to process data, to execute an application and task, while the device remains in the locked state or standby mode as taught by Shima with using a multi-perspective response generation system in long/short form as taught by Koukoumidisas each element performs the same function as it does separately, as the combination would yield predictable results, KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US. -- 82 USPQ2nd 1385 (2007), wherein the predictable result would be allowing particular chatbots, prioritized and having a multi-perspective response generated in long/short, relating to an input intent and domain, and output in audio form, via conversation while in a locked mode, allowing a user to bypass several steps in unlocking a device or waking up the device via user interaction on an interface (ibid-Kato, Shima, Koukoumidis).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tuckfield et al. (Tuckfield, US 11,068,477) in view of Kato et al. (Kato, US 2019/0108836) in view of Shima in view of Koukoumidis, as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Rodgers (US 2019/0205461).
As per claim 10, Tuckfield with Kato with Shima with Koukoumidis make obvious the system of claim 1, but lack teaching that which Rogers teaches, wherein the at least one voice query includes a first voice query requesting an audio response and a second voice query requesting an image response having at least one image (paragraph [0028, 0031]-his voice input, audio interface for audio response, and requested image displayed from visual response).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the linguistics art, before the effective filing date of the invention, as all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (computer implemented techniques and algorithms combining processes and steps in natural language processing), in view of the teachings of Tuckfield and Kato and Shum to combine the prior art element of an audio input smart device in communication with a chatbot as taught by Tuckfield with a selection of a chatbot from a plurality of chatbots and audio output to a device as taught by Kato with audio/image response requests as taught by Rodgers, as each element performs the same function as it does separately, as the combination would yield predictable results, KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US. -- 82 USPQ2nd 1385 (2007), wherein the predictable result would be generating an audio/image response to a query (ibid-Rogers).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tuckfield et al. (Tuckfield, US 11,068,477) in view of Kato et al. (Kato, US 2019/0108836) in view of Shima in view of Koukoumidis, as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Koohmarey et al. (Kookmarey, US 2019/0104092).
As per claim 11, Tuckfield with Kato with Shima with Koukoumidis make obvious the system of claim 1, but lacks that which Koohmarey teaches, wherein at least one of the at least one smart device or the chatbot application is configured to transfer the second text data or signal to at least one selected from the group of a third party device via email, the third party device via SMS, and combinations thereof (paragraph [0032-his chatbot, and corresponding SMS, email and combinations thereof, via his one or more, for transferring conversation to third party provider).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the linguistics art, before the effective filing date of the invention, as all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (computer implemented techniques and algorithms combining processes and steps in natural language processing), in view of the teachings of Tuckfield and Kato and Koohmarey to combine the prior art element of an audio input smart device in communication with a chatbot as taught by Tuckfield with a selection of a chatbot from a plurality of chatbots and audio output to a device as taught by Kato with SMS or email, and combinations thereof, for communicating a conversation from an digital assistant, as taught by Koohmarey, as each element performs the same function as it does separately, as the combination would yield predictable results, KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US. -- 82 USPQ2nd 1385 (2007), wherein the predictable result would be allowing a conversation to be handled by a third party conversation provider (ibid-Koohmarey).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tuckfield et al. (Tuckfield, US 11,068,477) in view of Kato et al. (Kato, US 2019/0108836) in view of Shima in view of Koukoumidis, as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Chen (US 2024/0134947).
As per claim 12, Tuckfield with Kato with Shima with Koukoumidis make obvious the system of claim 1, but lack that which Chen teaches, wherein converting the first audio data or signal to the first text data or signal includes using an audio assistant of the at least one smart device when the at least one smart device is locked by a user (paragraph [0106, 0107]-his locked device, and corresponding audio/voice assistant, and conversion of a first audio data).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the linguistics art, before the effective filing date of the invention, as all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (computer implemented techniques and algorithms combining processes and steps in natural language processing), in view of the teachings of Tuckfield and Kato and Chen to combine the prior art element of an audio input smart device in communication with a chatbot as taught by Tuckfield with a selection of a chatbot from a plurality of chatbots and audio output to a device as taught by Kato with voice assistant in locked mode, as taught by Chen, as each element performs the same function as it does separately, as the combination would yield predictable results, KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US. -- 82 USPQ2nd 1385 (2007), wherein the predictable result would be allowing a voice assistant to perform a function while the device is in locked mode (ibid-Chen).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure (See PTO-892).
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 LAMONT M SPOONER whose telephone number is (571)272-7613. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 AM -5:00 PM.
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, Daniel Washburn can be reached on (571)272-5551. 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.
/LAMONT M SPOONER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2657
7/14/26
Prosecution Insights