DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/09/2026 has been entered.
In view of applicant’s amendment and arguments regarding objections to the claims, the objection is hereby withdrawn.
The applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot in view of new ground(s) of rejections necessitated by 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.
Claims 25, 28, 34, 35, 38 and 44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20180136794 (Cassidy) in view of US 20180278553 (Yu) and further in view of one or more of (US 20130198506 (Smith) and/or US 20120262582 (Kimchi)).
Regarding claims 25 and 35, Cassidy teaches “A system (FIG 8 with corresponding description) comprising:
an output device (FIG 8 and paragraph 0144: User interface output devices 820);
a first wireless communications module (paragraph 0142: a network interface subsystem 816); and
a processor coupled to the output device and the first wireless communications module (paragraph 0142: at least one processor 814 which communicates with a number of peripheral devices),
wherein the processor is to:
generate a first portion of a message (FIG 3D1 and paragraph 0104: In FIG. 3D, generation of the message "Yes, what can I bring?" Although the user touches or presses each individual letter on the virtual keyboard, it is the processor which generates this message based on individual letters entered by the user)…”
“…generate at least two candidate second portions to complete the message (FIG 3D2 and paragraph 0105: presentation of a group of graphical elements 195. The group of graphical elements 195 takes into account subsequent communication features that are based on the textual input of "Yes, what can I bring?". In other words, selection of plurality of individual elements (each of which is “candidate second portion” and all of them together comprising “at least two candidate second portions to complete the message”) to be presented in the group 195 is based on the message “Yes, what can I bring?”)…”
“…receive a first input from the user of the system, the first input indicative of a selection of one of the at least two candidate second portions as a selected second portion (paragraph 0105: The user may select one or more of the graphical elements to include the selected graphical elements in the communication to be submitted); and
generate a complete message by combining the first portion and the selected second portion (paragraph 0105: The user may select one or more of the graphical elements to include the selected graphical elements in the communication to be submitted, and submit the communication through selection of the submission interface element 193. In other words, the complete message comprises “the first portion” (“Yes, what can I bring?”) and “the selected second portion” (selected one or more of the graphical elements 195)); and
wherein the first wireless communications module is to transmit the complete message to a different system (implicit; usage of these features in messaging applications is generally covered in paragraph 0001 and 0053).”
Although Cassidy teaches presence of a camera (see paragraph 0071), Cassidy does not teach “responsive to analyzing visual content of one or more images captured by a camera of the system, identifying an environmental context parameter indicative of at least one of surroundings or activity of a user” and that the generation of the candidate second portions is “based on the environmental context parameter.”
Yu is in similar art of generating plurality of candidate messages so that the user may select one of the candidates to transmit to the recipient (see abstract). Specifically, FIG 3 with corresponding description shows an engine to generate candidate messages. Paragraphs 0110 – 0113 disclose presence of context framework 300. The context framework 300 may obtain the context of the user at the particular period of time. Examples of the context of the user may include the time, day, date, schedule of the user, location of the user, activity of the user (“identifying an environmental context parameter indicative of at least one of surroundings or activity of a user”). The context framework 300 may obtain the location information of the user by using a location sensor (e.g. GPS) provided in the device 100. The context framework 300 may detect the activity of the user by using a camera provided in the device 100. The candidate message generator module 230 may determine a recommendation message based, in part, on the context of the user obtained through the context framework 300 (“based on the environmental context parameter”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to combine disclosed by Yu detecting at least the activity of the user by utilizing “the camera of the system” to use as a context for generation of candidate messages, with the system of Cassidy. Doing so would have allowed to increase the variety of candidate messages based on the user context (based on Yu, paragraph 0117).
Yu is silent on a specific way of using the camera to identify the “environmental context parameter” and thus does not teach that it is “responsive to analyzing visual content of one or more images captured by a camera of the system.”
In this respect, Smith in paragraph 0026 teaches that the current context of the user may be determined using a camera or cameras mounted in the device. For example, the mobile device may include a camera on opposite front and back sides of the device. The cameras may be activated and collect a plurality of images of the surroundings or environment where the device and user are located. The current context of the user may then be determined from analysis of the plurality of images. As further stated in paragraph 0020, the user context may be defined by an activity the user is involved, an environment or location where the user is located. In other words, Smith teaches “responsive to analyzing visual content of one or more images captured by a camera of the system, identifying an environmental context parameter indicative of at least one of surroundings or activity of a user.”
Additionally or alternatively, Kimchi at least in paragraphs 0012 and 0054 teaches that a mobile device may be configured to gather information from various sensors to determine a user's conduct and context, and to customize device or application behavior accordingly. For example, user conduct may be determined by analyzing images from a user-facing camera. Environmental context may be determined by analyzing images from an environment-facing camera. The determined conduct and context may be analyzed relative to each other to identify relationships between the user and the user's environment. Such relationships may be reported to applications on the mobile device, and the applications may customize their behavior and that of the device depending on the nature of the reported relationships. The environment sensor(s) 816 may comprise one or more cameras, and the environment analysis logic 820 may process and analyze sequential images of the environment to determine or infer the environmental context of the user. For example, the environment analysis logic 820 may identify nearby objects or landmarks, with reference to local or remote databases. Image analysis may also reveal things such as the type of surface the user is traversing, whether the user is moving, how fast the user is moving, whether it is raining or snowing, whether the sun is shining, whether the user is indoors or outdoors, etc. In other words, Kimchi teaches “responsive to analyzing visual content of one or more images captured by a camera of the system, identifying an environmental context parameter indicative of at least one of surroundings or activity of a user.”
Therefore, since Yu is silent on a specific way of using the camera to identify the “environmental context parameter”, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to utilize disclosed by Smith and/or Kimchi method of using a camera to capture images and analyzing them to determine the user’s context including surroundings and/or activity of the user, in the device of Cassidy and Yu. Doing so would have provided a working method of using a camera to determine the context to be used in composing the messages that Yu describes without going into details since, according to the Supreme Court, “[t]he combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).
Regarding claims 28 and 38, Cassidy teaches “wherein at least one of the at least two candidate second portions is a non-text image, and the output device is to display the non-text image (as shown in FIG 3D2 and described in paragraph 0105, each of the “candidate second portions” is a graphical element 195 (“a non-text image”) which are displayed).”
Regarding claims 34 and 44, Cassidy teaches “…wherein the processor is to identify a location of the system…” “…and generate at least one candidate message based on the location of the system (paragraph 0068: The user state engine 124 determines current states of dynamic states of the users engaged in the dialog. For example, a current state may indicate a current location of the user that is formulating the subsequent communication to be submitted as part of the dialog. Paragraph 0004: formulating the electronic communication may include current state features that indicate current states, of one or more dynamic user states (e.g., location, sentiment), of one or more users engaged in the dialog. Paragraph 0013: determining at least one current state feature that indicates a current state of at least one dynamic user state of the user or the additional user, and selecting the graphical element further based on the current state feature. The dynamic user state includes a physical location. In other words, it may clearly be seen that information regarding location is used to generate the candidate messages).”
Cassidy does not teach “further comprising a location sensor communicatively coupled to the processor” and that the location is identified “based on an output of the location sensor.”
However, Cassidy clearly teaches utilizing location information to formulate candidate messages, as explained above. On the other side, paragraph 0049 teaches that the claimed device may be a mobile phone. In one of the previous office actions the Examiner took an Official Notice that equipping mobile phones with GPS sensors/receivers to determine location of the user was well known in the art at the effective filing date of the application. Since the Applicant has not challenged this assertion, it is now treated as an admitted prior art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to utilize GPS sensors/receivers normally included in mobile phones to determine the user’s location on the basis of which candidate messages may be formulated in the system of Cassidy. Doing so would have simply filled in where Cassidy is silent and provided hardware support for the explicitly disclosed feature of utilizing location information to formulate candidate messages.
Claims 25, 27, 29, 30, 34, 35, 37, 39, 40 and 44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 8996639 (Faaborg) in view of US 20180278553 (Yu) and further in view of one or more of (US 20130198506 (Smith) and/or US 20120262582 (Kimchi)).
Regarding claims 25 and 35, Faaborg teaches “A system (FIG 1 with corresponding description: computing device 2) comprising:
an output device (FIG 1 and col. 4 lines 9 – 11: user interface (UI) device 4 of computing device 2 may be configured to function as an input device and/or an output device);
a first wireless communications module (col. 4 lines 1 – 3: Examples of computing device 2 may include portable, mobile, or other devices, such as mobile phones (including smartphones). Mobile phones inherently have “wireless communications module”); and
a processor coupled to the output device and the first wireless communications module (Col. 5 lines 10 – 11: Computing device 2 may execute modules 6, 8, and/or 10 with one processor or with multiple processors. The coupling is implicit),
wherein the processor is to:
generate a first portion of a message (FIG 4 and col. 23 lines 44 – 57: Response preamble 178 may be determined by computing device 2 based on information included in an incoming communication (e.g., the sender's name), or other information. In FIG. 4B, response suggestion unit 14 may determine response preamble 178 based at least in part on the "email" contextual element indicating the type of response and/or the "professional" contextual element indicating the social relationship.)…”
“…generate at least two candidate second portions to complete the message (FIG 4 and col. 23 line 58 – col. 24 line 1: GUI 170 includes response options 174. Response options 174 may correspond to candidate responses received from response suggestion unit 14, responses stored at computing device 2, responses stored at computing device 2 but modified by response suggestion unit 14, responses received from response suggestion unit 14 but modified by computing device 2, or some combination thereof. In FIG. 4B, each of response options 174 may represent a candidate response outputted by suggestion module 16 and received from response suggestion unit 14.)…”
“…receive a first input from the user of the system, the first input indicative of a selection of one the at least two candidate second portions as a selected second portion (col. 24 lines 23 – 25: Responsive to outputting GUI 170 for display, computing device 2 may receive input indicating a selection of one of response options 174 or custom response option 176.); and
generate a complete message by combining the first portion and the selected second portion (col. 24 lines 27 – 29: computing device 2 may generate the response (e.g., including response preamble 178, the selected option, and response conclusion 180)); and
wherein the first wireless communications module is to transmit the complete message to a different system (col. 24 lines 29 – 30: send the response to one or more other computing devices).”
Although Faaborg teaches presence of a camera (see col. 4 lines 8 – 17), Faaborg does not teach “responsive to analyzing visual content of one or more images captured by a camera of the system, identifying an environmental context parameter indicative of at least one of surroundings or activity of a user” and that the generation of the candidate second portions is “based on the environmental context parameter.”
However, these limitations are rejection in view of Yu and one or more of (Smith and/or Kimchi) as explained in the rejection of same claims in Section 7 above.
Regarding claims 27 and 37, Faaborg teaches “wherein at least one of the at least two candidate second portions is a text string, and the output device is to present the text string (as shown in FIG 4B and described in col. 23 line 58 – col. 24 line 1, each of the “candidate second portions” is “a text string” 174A - 174D which are displayed).”
Regarding claims 29 and 39, Faaborg teaches “wherein the processor is to: generate the first portion of the message based on an environmental context parameter representing an environmental context including at least one of: a time, a date, a calendar entry in a calendar, a location, a physical environment, or an activity performed by the user (col. 21 lines 16 – 19 and 32 – 36: Responsive to receiving input indicating a selection of reply option 152, one or more components of computing device 2 may generate and send a request for candidate responses. The request may also include such information as location information (e.g., determined by device location module 8), a current time, a type of incoming communication. This is the same as claimed “an environmental context parameter representing an environmental context including at least one of: a time, … a location, … and an activity performed by the user” with “activity performed by the user” being replying to incoming email which is determined by the user selecting reply option 152. Col. 21 lines 47 – 58: determining a current context of computing device 2 representing the context within which the response to the incoming communication is to be sent. Accessing a calendar of the user. Col. 21 line 60 – col. 22 line 3: determine a contextual element indicating a user ID for Bob Andrews, a contextual element indicating the sender of the incoming communication (e.g., "Erica Davis"), a contextual element indicating the type of incoming communication (e.g., "email"), and a contextual element indicating the type of response (e.g., "email"). User data analysis module 50 may determine a "professional" contextual element indicating a social-relationship between the user (e.g., Bob Andrews) and the sender of the incoming communication (e.g., Erica Davis). Col. 23 lines 44 – 50: determining response preamble 178 (“the first portion of the message”) based at least in part on the "email" contextual element indicating the type of response (which is the same as claimed “based on an environmental context parameter representing an environmental context including at least one of: … an activity performed by the user” - responding to incoming email) and/or the "professional" contextual element indicating the social relationship.).”
Regarding claims 30 and 40, Faaborg teaches “wherein the processor is to autonomously determine at least one recipient of the complete message based on at least one of a content of the complete message and the environmental context parameter (Col. 21 lines 16 – 27: Responsive to receiving input indicating a selection of reply option 152, one or more components of computing device 2 may generate and send a request for candidate responses. That is, when computing device 2 receives instructions to enable the user to respond to the incoming communication, computing device 2 may generate a request including an indication of at least part of the information included in the incoming communication, such as information indicating the sender of the email. Therefore, the recipient of the reply email is autonomously determined by the device as the sender of the original received email and thus is “based on at least one of … the environmental context parameter” which includes such information as “an activity performed by the user”, as was explained in the rejection of parent claim 29 above. In this case, “an activity performed by the user” is replying to the received email).”
Regarding claims 34 and 44, Faaborg teaches “further comprising a location sensor communicatively coupled to the processor (col. 5 lines 4 – 5: device location module 8), wherein the processor is to identify a location of the system based on an output of the location sensor (col. 5 lines 30 – 55 describe determining location of the device) and generate at least one candidate message based on the location of the system (col. 7 lines 53 – 66: determining candidate responses based at least in part on a current context of a computing device. Determining a current context of a computing device (e.g., computing device 2) based on information included in a request for candidate responses and/or obtained from other sources, such as location information about computing device 2. Providing candidate responses based on the indication of the particular incoming communication as well as on the location information.).”
Claims 25, 27, 29, 30, 34, 35, 37, 39, 40 and 44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20160224524 (Kay) in view of US 20180278553 (Yu) and further in view of one or more of (US 20130198506 (Smith) and/or US 20120262582 (Kimchi)).
Regarding claims 25 and 35, Kay teaches “A system (FIG 1 with corresponding description: computing system 100) comprising:
an output device (FIG 1 and paragraph 0024: a touchscreen 125 display that provides graphical and textual visual feedback to a user);
a first wireless communications module (paragraph 0024: components 180 such as communication devices (e.g., wireless data ports, radios, antennas)); and
a processor coupled to the output device and the first wireless communications module (processor 110 in FIG 1 coupled to other components),
wherein the processor is to:
generate a first portion of a message (FIG 5 and paragraph 0053: In step 501, the system receives user text input in an active input field (e.g., by voice, keyboard, keypad, gesture, and/or handwriting inputs). The active input field can be associated with a message. Therefore, for example, when the user uses voice or gesture as the input interface means, the processor generates “first portion of the message”)…”
“…generate at least two candidate second portions to complete the message (FIG 5 and paragraphs 0054 – 0056: In step 504, the system identifies a phrase or phrases previously entered by the user to suggest to the user in the current context of the active input field. The system bases the suggestion also on the similarity or compatibility between the already-entered text and the candidate phrases for suggestion. In step 505, the system suggests the identified phrases to the user. The system can immediately present identified phrases to the user when the suggested phrases exceed a threshold likelihood for the particular context.)…”
“…receive a first input from the user of the system, the first input indicative of a selection of one the at least two candidate second portions as a selected second portion (paragraph 0057: In step 506, if the user selects one of the suggested phrases…); and
generate a complete message by combining the first portion and the selected second portion (paragraph 0057: …the process continues with step 501, receiving the selected phrase and inserting that phrase into the active input field at the current text insertion point.); and
wherein the first wireless communications module is to transmit the complete message to a different system (paragraph 0058: pressing <send> to transmit an entered text or email message).”
Although Kay teaches presence of a camera, its usage to identify user movements and manual gestures and that the phrase prediction system 162a can use one or more input components 120 (e.g., camera) to detect context associated with user input (see paragraphs 0024 and 0028), Kay does not explicitly teach “responsive to analyzing visual content of one or more images captured by a camera of the system, identifying an environmental context parameter indicative of at least one of surroundings or activity of a user” and that the generation of the candidate second portions is “based on the environmental context parameter.”
However, these limitations are rejection in view of Yu and one or more of (Smith and/or Kimchi) as explained in the rejection of same claims in Section 7 above.
Regarding claims 27 and 37, Kay teaches “wherein at least one of the at least two candidate second portions is a text string, and the output device is to present the text string (as shown in FIG 5 and described in paragraph 0054, each of the “candidate second portions” is “a text string” which are displayed).”
Regarding claims 29 and 39, Kay teaches “wherein the processor is to: generate the first portion of the message based on an environmental context parameter representing an environmental context including at least one of: a time, a date, a calendar entry in a calendar, a location, a physical environment, or an activity performed by the user (Fig. 4 and par. 0041 – 0052: In step 401, the system identifies an opportunity to suggest a phrase in an active input field on a user device, e.g., in a text entry box, an email message, an SMS message, or other area or application in which the user can enter text. In step 402, the system identifies context information for the active input field. Context information includes the time the information was received (corresponds to claimed “a time”). Many other examples of context information are given in paragraph 0033 and may include the location of the device (corresponds to claimed “a location”), the time of day, the day of the week (corresponds to claimed “a time, a date”). Paragraph 0044: In step 405, the system identifies, based at least in part on similarity to previous contexts, a previously user-entered phrase or phrases to suggest to the user in the current context of the active input field. The system can identify more than one phrase to suggest. Paragraph 0045 – 0046: The system can identify phrases to suggest based on context such as a particular time of day. The system can also identify phrases to suggest based on context such as a particular location or motion of the user's device by using signals from sensors to determine whether the user is stationary, running, driving, etc. (corresponds to claimed “an activity performed by the user”) and suggest responses associated with the relevant context. Paragraph 0050: In step 407, the system displays phrase suggestions for user selection. Paragraph 0052: In step 408, the system receives a user selection of a suggested phrase, and in step 409, the system enters the suggested phrase in the active input field.).”
Regarding claims 30 and 40, Kay teaches “wherein the processor is to autonomously determine at least one recipient of the complete message based on at least one of a content of the complete message and the environmental context parameter (as stated in paragraphs 0033, 0042, 0047 and 0048, the system of suggesting messages is utilized to reply to the incoming communication, including emails and SMS. When replying, it is implicit that the recipient of the reply is autonomously determined to be the sender of the original message and thus is “based on at least one of … the environmental context parameter” which includes such information as “an activity performed by the user. In this case, “an activity performed by the user” is replying to the received email or SMS).”
Regarding claims 34 and 44, Kay teaches “further comprising a location sensor communicatively coupled to the processor (paragraph 0024: The computing system 100 can also include various device components 180 such as sensors (e.g., GPS or other location determination sensors)), wherein the processor is to identify a location of the system based on an output of the location sensor (paragraph 0033: context information that the system can identify include the location of the device on which the phrase was received or when the user sent a particular message containing the phrase (e.g., information derived via GPS or cell tower data, user-set location, time zone, language, and/or currency format)) and generate at least one candidate message based on the location of the system (paragraph 0046: The system can also identify phrases to suggest based on context such as a particular location).”
Claims 26 and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (US 20180136794 (Cassidy) or US 20160224524 (Kay)) in view of US 20180278553 (Yu) and one or more of (US 20130198506 (Smith) and/or US 20120262582 (Kimchi)) as applied to claims 25 and 35 above, and further in view of US 20150072658 (Panttaja).
Regarding claims 26 and 36, Cassidy or Kay do not teach “further comprising:
a wearable heads-up display (WHUD) which comprises the processor, a display coupled to the processor and the first wireless communications module, and
a peripheral device comprising a second wireless communications module; wherein the first wireless communications module of the WHUD is to transmit the complete message; and
the second wireless communications module of the peripheral device is to receive the complete message and transmit the complete message.”
In paragraph 0049, Cassidy teaches that client devices 106A-N may be a wearable apparatus of the user that includes a computing device (e.g., glasses of the user having a computing device, a virtual or augmented reality computing device).
Similarly, in paragraph 0024 Kay teaches that a display 130 may include a projected display (such as a heads-up display device).
Panttaja teaches “a wearable heads-up display (WHUD) (paragraph 0027: peripheral computing device 112 is a head-mounted device, such as a pair of glasses with a heads-up display. An example of such a pair of glasses 800 is shown in FIGS. 8A and 8B) which comprises the processor (paragraph 0025 and FIG 2: a block diagram of a peripheral computing device 112. The peripheral computing device 112 includes a processor 202), a display coupled to the processor (paragraph 0025 and FIG 2: a block diagram of a peripheral computing device 112. The peripheral computing device 112 includes a display element 204), and the first wireless communications module (paragraph 0025 and FIG 2: a block diagram of a peripheral computing device 112. The peripheral computing device 112 includes a network element 208. Paragraph 0021: a peripheral computing device 112, which is connected via a short-range network 114 to the primary computing device 104b. Therefore, the network element is a wireless interface), and
a peripheral device (paragraph 0021: a primary computing device 104b. Although the claim defines the device as “peripheral” while paragraph 0021 of Panttaja defines it as “primary”, this is merely a matter of naming and bears no patentable significance) comprising a second wireless communications module (Paragraph 0021: a peripheral computing device 112, which is connected via a short-range network 114 to the primary computing device 104b. Therefore, the device 104b has “a second wireless communications module”);
wherein the first wireless communications module of the WHUD is to transmit the complete message (paragraph 0035: a connection between the computing device 104b and the computing device 112 (“WHUD”) is established. Paragraph 0039: the computing device 104b provides message history to the computing device 112 for viewing by the user (step 314). This may include text messages (paragraph 0040). Paragraph 0041: the messages are streamed from the computing device 104b to the computing device 112. Paragraph 0045: the user may create a message for delivery to the sending party. Paragraph 0046: the message is streamed to the computing device 104b (“the first wireless communications module of the WHUD is to transmit the complete message”). Although the description in paragraph 0046 is specifically given for audio or video messaging, FIG 6 showing the interface at the computing device 112 explicitly shows a button for “text” messaging and usage of the method specifically for text messaging is given at least in paragraph 0040 and at least implies in paragraphs 0003 and 0018. Alternatively or additionally and regardless of the above, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to take the same process as disclosed for audio or video messaging and utilize it for text messaging as well, thus providing additional flexibility and an additional way of communication); and
the second wireless communications module of the peripheral device is to receive the complete message (paragraph 0046: the message is streamed to the computing device 104b (“the peripheral device”) (step 414). The computing device stores the received message (step 416).) and transmit the complete message (paragraph 0046: The computing device 104b (“the peripheral device”) transmits the message to the intended recipient (such as computing device 104a of FIG. 1). In the example of FIG. 4, the intended recipient is Jill Wright, or the sending party who delivered the original message (step 304) and who is participating in the conversation that corresponds to the message history 602.).”
Therefore, since both Cassidy teaches that client devices 106A-N may be a wearable apparatus of the user that includes a computing device (e.g., glasses of the user having a computing device, a virtual or augmented reality computing device), and Kay teaches that a display 130 may include a projected display (such as a heads-up display device), but neither provides any details of the particular implementation, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to combine the teaching of Cassidy or Kay with the teaching of Panttaja and implement the client devices 106 of Cassidy or display 130 of Kay as the heads up display of Panttaja in communication with a smartphone or other device connected to a cellular network. Doing so would have provided additional convenience to the user by allowing the user to control a smartphone, which may be in a pocket, from an additional device wirelessly connected to the smartphone, without the need to remove the smartphone from the pocket (see Panttaja).
Claims 33 and 43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (US 20180136794 (Cassidy) or US 20160224524 (Kay)) in view of US 20180278553 (Yu) and one or more of (US 20130198506 (Smith) and/or US 20120262582 (Kimchi)) as applied to claims 25 and 35 above, and further in view of US 20150070262 (Peters).
Regarding claims 33 and 43, Cassidy or Kay do not teach “wherein the processor is to identify a gaze direction of the user based on one or more images captured by the camera, and to generate the complete message based on the gaze direction of the user.”
Peters in FIG 1 and 6 with corresponding description in paragraphs 0026 – 0032 and 0044 teaches “wherein the processor is to identify gaze direction of the user based on one or more images captured by the camera (paragraph 0027: In step 102 of process 100, an object in a user's field of view can be identified. For example, the user may have a computing device that includes an outward facing, camera and/or a user facing camera with an eye-tracking system. A digital image/video stream from the outward facing camera can be obtained and compared with the user's eye-tracking data to determine a user's field of view. Various computer vision techniques (e.g., image recognition, image registration and the like) can be utilized to identify objects in the user's field of view.), and to generate the complete message based on the gaze direction of the user (paragraph 0030: A user may be composing a text message (e.g. a short messaging system message (SMS), a multimedia system message (MMS), etc.). Paragraph 0031: certain components of the text message are relevant to the identified object indicated by the user's eye-tracking data in step 108. Accordingly, in step 110, context data associated with text message components can be obtained, such as the digital image of the identified object itself can be the context data. The digital image can be included in the text message and/or a hyperlink to the digital image can be associated with the text message component. Paragraph 0032: In step 114, the text message and the context data can be communicated to the addressed device. Similar process is described in paragraph 0044).”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to utilize disclosed by Peters method of inclusion, in the message to be sent, additional image(s) relevant to the message content acquired based on the gaze direction of the user, in the system of Cassidy or Kay. Doing so would have resulted in a richer mechanism for parsing and annotation, and a significantly more dynamic, timely, customized, and relevant messaging system (see Peters, paragraph 0021).
Claims 31 and 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (US 8996639 (Faaborg) or US 20160224524 (Kay)) in view of US 20180278553 (Yu) and one or more of (US 20130198506 (Smith) and/or US 20120262582 (Kimchi)) as applied to claims 29 and 39 above, and further in view of US 20160357761 (Siracusa).
Regarding claims 31 and 41, Faaborg or Kay teach “wherein the processor is to: determine at least one candidate recipient for the complete message based on at least one of a content of the complete message and the environmental context parameter (Please see explanation in the rejections of claim 30 having similar limitation above in Sections 8 (Faaborg) and 9 (Kay), the explanation being incorporated herein by reference)…”
Faaborg or Kay do not teach “receive a second input from the user of the system, the second input indicative of a selection of one of the at least one candidate recipient as a selected recipient, and wherein the first wireless communications module is to transmit the complete message to the selected recipient.”
In similar art, Siracusa teaches systems and methods for suggesting recipients (see abstract). The method is disclosed in FIG 1 with corresponding description as well as FIG 4 with corresponding description. Specifically, paragraph 0035: At block 104, contextual information representing a current state of the device is determined. Paragraph 0036: Contextual information may specify one or more properties of the device for a certain context. The context may be the surrounding environment (type of context) of the device when the triggering event is received, such as the time of day that the event is detected or may be a certain location of the device when the event is detected (“the environmental context parameter”). Such contextual information may provide more meaningful information about the context of the device such that the suggestion engine may accurately suggest a recipient that is likely to be selected by the user in that context. Accordingly, prediction engine utilizing contextual information may more accurately suggest a recipient to a user than if no contextual information were utilized. Paragraph 0039: At block 110, one or more recipients for the communication are predicted (“determine at least one candidate recipient for the complete message based on at least one of … the environmental context parameter”). Paragraph 0042: At block 112, an indication of the one or more predicted recipients is provided to the user. Block 112 can include presenting a list of the one or more predicted recipients in a user interface of the user device, or within a communication application executing on the user device. The action may be the displaying of a user interface for a user to select one or more of the predicted recipients (“receive a second input from the user of the system, the second input indicative of a selection of one of the at least one candidate recipient as a selected recipient”).
Additionally, Siracusa’s paragraph 0026 teaches that user-supplied information can be used to predict recipients. The user-supplied information can include an email subject or content of an email. For example, recipients of past communications having characteristics similar to the user-supplied information can be presented to the user as suggested recipients of a current communication. Parsing a subject of an email message may be used to identify one or more keywords that may be relevant to suggesting potential recipients. Paragraph 0105: when a user enters a subject (or portion thereof) on subject line 408, the suggested recipients list 410 can be updated based on keywords in the subject line. In other words, Siracusa teaches determining “at least one candidate recipient for the complete message based on at least one of a content of the complete message...”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to utilize disclosed by Siracusa method of predicting the recipients for electronic communications, in the system of Faaborg or Kay. Doing so would have provided an easy and convenient method for the user to find and select a desired recipient amongst all of available contacts that the user wishes to interact or communicate with (see Siracusa, paragraph 0002).
When the information disclosed by Siracusa is combined with the process disclosed by Faaborg or Kay, the method of selecting recipients based on the content of the message or environmental context parameter may become useful to suggest additional recipients (CC recipients) for the reply email (i.e. the user would send a reply email to the sender of the original received message and possibly CC to additional recipient(s) that may need to see the reply).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GENNADIY TSVEY whose telephone number is (571)270-3198. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9-5:30.
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, Wesley Kim can be reached at 571-272-7867. 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.
/GENNADIY TSVEY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2648
Prosecution Insights