DETAILED ACTION
Introduction
This office action is in response to applicant’s request for continued examination filed 10/24/25. Claims 1-20 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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 10/24/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed 10/24/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, “None of Tuckfield, Kato, or Shima, alone or in any proper combination with any of the other prior art references of record, namely, Bates, Sohum, Rodgers, Koohmarey, or Chen, disclose or suggest at least a chatbot application being configured to, among other things, "receive and 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 the at least one smart device's interface to unlock or wake the at least one smart device is not required for the chatbot application to operate." The invention as claimed in Claim 1 combines these features in a manner that is not suggested or rendered obvious by the prior art of Tuckfield, Kato, Shima, or any of the other prior art references made of record by the Examiner. The unique interaction between these features provides a technological improvement to the claimed method which is neither taught nor implied by the cited references. Accordingly, Claim 1 is patentable over Tuckfield, Kato, Shima and the other prior art references made of record by the Examiner, or any proper combination thereof.
However, the Examiner notes, Shima (US 2015/0340025) explicitly teaches the above argued, and underlined limitation, (as previously cited, (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), however, 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. The Examiner notes, Shima explicitly details the difference between unlocking the device and executing the application, and executing the application while in the locked state. Therefore, when combined with the previously cited prior art, as seen in the rejection below, there is a clear and present motivation to combine the references, wherein the art that lacks teaching being able to operate the chatbot application, while in a locked mode, is now expanded or enhanced when combined with Shima, wherein the application now has an enhanced feature, which comprises, receiving information, being able to process and analyze the information and return a result of a query (for example) via execution of an application, based on input from a user, while in a locked state.
The Examiner notes the applicant’s remaining arguments, with respect to the independent claims and dependent claims are also unpersuasive as they fall with the above argument.
Claims 1 and 14 objects are withdrawn based on the applicant’s amendment.
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).
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 at least one chatbot from the plurality of chatbots based on the first text data or signal;]
wherein the chatbot application is configured to generate a second text data or signal associated with a response to the at least one voice query based on operating or communicating with the [at least one] chatbot (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).
As per claim 2, Tuckfield with Kato with Shima 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 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 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 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 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 at least one chatbot from the plurality of chatbots based on the first text data or signal (ibid); wherein the chatbot application is configured to generate a second text data or signal associated with a response to the at least one voice query based on operating or communicating with the at least one chatbot (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).
Claim(s) 3, 16, 18 and 19 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, as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Bates-Maricle (Bates, 2024/0289113).
As per claims 3 and 16, Tuckfield with Kato make obvious the system of claim 1, but lack specifically teaching that which Bates-Maricle teaches, wherein the at least one chatbot is ChatGPT (paragraph [0008, 0041]-his chatbots, wherein a chatbot is a Chatgpt-based bot).
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 Bates 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 the Chatbot as a Chatgpt bot as taught by Bates 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 having a chatbot employing techniques utilizing by generative pre-trained transformer models (ibid-Bates).
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 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 at least one chatbot (ibid), including at least ChatGPT (ibid-see claim 3, corresponding and similar limitation), from the plurality of chatbots based on the first text data or signal (ibid-see claim 1, corresponding and similar limitation);
wherein the chatbot application is configured to generate a second text data or signal associated with a response to the at least one voice query based on operating or communicating with the at least one chatbot including at least ChatGPT (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 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).
Claim(s) 6-9, 17 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, as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Sohum et al. (Sohum, US 2021/0119945).
As per claim 6, Tuckfield with Kato with Shima make obvious the system of claim 1, but lack explicitly teaching that which Sohum teaches wherein selecting the at least one chatbot from the plurality of chatbots includes selecting and using multiple chatbots from the plurality of chatbots (paragraphs [0061-0064, 0077-0083], his ranked intelligent conversational agents as the chatbots, and corresponding mega bot, which is the combination of all ranked chatbots, selected and used in generating a response, based on integrating responses from multiple chatbots).
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 prioritizing multiple chatbots and integrating responses to at least one query, based on the prioritizing, as taught by Sohum, 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 multiple chatbots, to contribute to a response to a query (ibid-Sohum).
As per claim 7, Tuckfield with Kato with Shima with Sohum make obvious the system of claim 6, Sohum further teaches, wherein selecting and using the multiple chatbots includes prioritizing the multiple chatbots for use and integrating responses to the at least one voice query of the multiple chatbots based on the prioritizing (paragraphs [0061-0064, 0077-0083], his ranked intelligent conversational agents as the chatbots, and corresponding mega bot, which is the combination of all ranked chatbots, and generated response, based on integrating responses from multiple chatbots, based on prioritization/ranking of each chatbot).
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 prioritizing multiple chatbots and integrating responses to at least one query, based on the prioritizing, as taught by Sohum, 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 multiple chatbots, as prioritized, to contribute to a response to a query (ibid-Sohum).
As per claim 8, Tuckfield with Kato with Shima with Sohum make obvious the system of claim 6, Sohum further teaches wherein selecting and using the multiple chatbots includes selecting based on using machine learning operations (ibid-Sohum, see paragraphs [0010, 0061-0068-his selecting and used multiple chatbots, based on his machine learning model trained on the queries and corresponding selected chatbots conversation journey history).
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 a machine learning model for selecting chatbot(s) based on a query as taught by Sohum, 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 using machine learning for selecting appropriate chatbot(s), to contribute to a response to a query (ibid-Sohum).
As per claim 9, Tuckfield with Kato with Shima with Sohum make obvious the system of claim 6, Sohum further teaching, wherein selecting the at least one chatbot from the plurality of chatbots includes varying an amount of information of the second text data or signal associated with the response to the at least one voice query (paragraphs [0077-0081, 0064]-as his multiple varied amounts of information of the second data, associated with a voice query, to be presented to a user).
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 a varying an amount of response information as taught by Sohum, 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 a varying information response to a query, such as adding additional information from multiple bots to the query (ibid-Sohum).
As per claim 17, claim 17 sets forth limitations similar to claims 6-9 and is thus rejected under similar reasons and rationale, wherein Tuckfield with Kato with Shima with Sohum make obvious the method of claim 14, wherein selecting the at least one chatbot from the plurality of chatbots includes:
selecting and using multiple chatbots from the plurality of chatbots based on using machine learning operations (ibid-see claim 8, corresponding and similar limitation); prioritizing the multiple chatbots for use and integrating responses to the at least one voice query of the multiple chatbots based on the prioritizing (ibid-see claim 7, corresponding and similar limitation); and varying an amount of information of the second text data or signal associated with the response to the at least one voice query (ibid-see claim 9, corresponding and similar limitation).
Claim(s) 20 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 with Bates, as applied to claim 19, and further in view of Sohum.
As per claim 20, claim 20 sets forth limitations similar to claims 1-3 and 5, 7 and 9 and is thus rejected under similar reasons and rationale, wherein Tuckfield with Kato with with Shima Bates with Sohum make obvious the system of claim 19, wherein generating the second text data or signal includes:
prioritizing ChatGPT and the at least one additional text-only chatbot for use and integrating responses to the at least one voice query of ChatGPT and the at least one additional text-only chatbot based on the prioritizing (ibid-see claim 1, 3 and 7, corresponding and similar limitation, the chatbot as the ChatGPT bot, see integrating responses and text only bot, multiple chatbots discussion, and text-only chatbot discussion); and varying an amount of information of the second text data or signal associated with the response to the at least one voice query (ibid-see claim 9, corresponding and similar limitation, the above combination based on similar motivation and rationale as seen in the cited claims).
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, as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Rodgers (US 2019/0205461).
As per claim 10, Tuckfield with Kato with Shima 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, 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 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, as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Chen (US 2024/0134947).
As per claim 12, Tuckfield with Kato with Shima 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).
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
11/29/25