DETAILED ACTION
This office action is responsive to the Request for Reconsideration-After Non-Final filed 7/8/2026. The application contains claims 1-20, all examined and rejected.
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 .
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 1-2, 5-11, 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carbune et al. [US 2022/0028379 A1, hereinafter Carbune] in view of Yap et al. [US 2019/0373489 A1, hereinafter Yap].
With regard to Claim 1,
Carbune teach a system, comprising:
at least one processing circuit comprising at least one memory storing instructions therein that are executable by one or more processors to (¶9, “one or more processors operable to execute stored instructions to perform a method“, Fig. 5, ¶77):
obtain, via a first user interface, a query associated with a profile of a user , the first user interface configured to present an output corresponding to a first format (¶17, “ the user can provide a spoken utterance to the automated assistant … “Assistant, is my car still charging?” When the automated assistant receives the spoken utterance …”, ¶45, “Furthermore, the computing device 302 can provide a user interface, such as a microphone, for receiving spoken natural language inputs from a user”, ¶63, “The method 400 can include an operation 402 of determining whether the automated assistant has received a spoken utterance from one or more users”, ¶64, “In response to receiving the spoken utterance, the method 400 can proceed to an optional operation 404, which can include identifying a user profile corresponding to the user who provided the spoken utterance. For example, a user profile can be associated with a particular user“, ¶27, “In response to receiving the initial spoken utterance 106, and based on the determined level of interaction for the user 102, the automated assistant can render a response from an audio interface of the automated assistant device 104”, ¶59, “content selected for a particular responsive output can be selected based on a user profile associated with a particular user …“, system receive a query and identifies a corresponding user profile, which is used to select processing models and determines interaction level then govern response generation and modality selection and the voice/audio interface present output in first format);
generate, based on the query and first data corresponding to the profile of the user, second data as a response to the query (¶67, “The operation 410 can include generating responsive output data, and/or other automated assistant output data, that is based on the spoken utterance and, optionally, the related data”, “,¶¶59-60, “content selected for a particular responsive output can be selected based on a user profile associated with a particular user …”);
compare one or more attributes indicative of a structure of the second data with a heuristic to determine that the structure of the second data satisfies the heuristic, the heuristic corresponding to a second format (¶65, “ Therefore, when, for example, a first level of interaction threshold is satisfied the automated assistant can render a responsive output that embodies one or more first features. Furthermore, when a second level of interaction threshold is satisfied, the automated assistant can render a responsive output that embodies one or more second features that can include one or more features that are different from the one or more first features”, ¶60, “ output feature engine 324 can select one or more features of an automated assistant response according to the level of interaction of a user that is to receive the automated assistant response … whether one or more level of interaction thresholds have been satisfied, and/or whether a user profile indicates whether one or more features should be adjusted”, ¶91, “Generating the response to the user utterance can optionally include determining, based on the level of interaction, a quantity of content to include in the response”, ¶94, “based on the level of interaction, the quantity of content to include in the response comprises determining, based on the level of interaction, whether to include, in the response: only a given snippet from a resource”);
select, according to a determination that a structure of the second data satisfies a heuristic corresponding to a second format, a second user interface configured to present an output corresponding to the selected second format (¶34, “For example, instead of providing the additional responsive output 126 through an audio interface, the automated assistant can cause a similar responsive output to be rendered at a graphical interface of the other automated assistant device 124”, ¶22, “as an interaction between the user and the automated assistant continues, the automated assistant can cause content to be rendered via one or more different modalities. For instance, in the aforementioned example, when in response to the user adjusting their gaze and their level of interaction increasing, the automated assistant can cause graphical content to be rendered at the automated assistant device (e.g., a graphical control panel for controlling, and/or indicating a status of, each appliance)”), wherein the second user interface is selected from among a plurality of user interfaces associated with the profile of the user; (¶45, “ A user can interact with the automated assistant 304 via assistant interface(s) 320, which can be a microphone, a camera, a touch screen display, one or more user interfaces, and/or any other apparatus capable of providing an interface between a user and an application”, ¶60, “volume of an automated assistant response, graphical content of an automated assistant response, pace of an automated assistant response, modality of an automated assistant response, graphical user interface content of an automated assistant response, voice for an automated assistant response, time between words and/or syllables in an automated assistant response, tense of phrases in the automated assistant response, and/or any other feature of an automated assistant response that is adjustable can be modifiable by the automated assistant 304 according to: level of interaction, whether one or more level of interaction thresholds have been satisfied, and/or whether a user profile indicates whether one or more features should be adjusted”, ¶34, “For example, instead of providing the additional responsive output 126 through an audio interface, the automated assistant can cause a similar responsive output to be rendered at a graphical interface of the other automated assistant device 124”, ¶64); and
cause the second user interface to present an output in the selected second format corresponding to at least a portion of the second data (¶22, “ as an interaction between the user and the automated assistant continues, the automated assistant can cause content to be rendered via one or more different modalities. … the automated assistant can cause graphical content to be rendered at the automated assistant device (e.g., a graphical control panel for controlling, and/or indicating a status of, each appliance)“, ¶23, “For example, instead of rendering an audible output, the automated assistant can render a graphical interface output, such as a selectable link that, when selected, causes the automated assistant to render a status page that provides a detailed list of each appliance in the home and their operating status”, system display graphical interface (second UI) to present the response data in a selected graphical format, rendering a status page with detailed list of appliance , ¶34, “ For example, instead of providing the additional responsive output 126 through an audio interface, the automated assistant can cause a similar responsive output to be rendered at a graphical interface of the other automated assistant device “).
Carbune does not explicitly teach
Yap teach compare one or more attributes of the response indicative of a structure of the second data with a heuristic to determine that the structure of the second data satisfies the heuristic, the heuristic corresponding to a second format (¶91, “In some embodiments, the electronic computing device determines a length of the response to the query (for example, a number of words included in the response generated by the electronic computing device). In some embodiments, the electronic computing device determines that the response to the query is longer than a predetermined response length threshold (for example, ten words, fifty words, one hundred words, and the like)”, “In response to determining that that the response to the query is longer than the predetermined response length threshold, the electronic computing device transmits the response to the communication device 200 of the user 102 as text data over a text channel”);
select, according to the determination that the structure of the second data satisfies the heuristic corresponding to the second format, a second user interface configured to present an output corresponding to the selected second format (¶91, “In some embodiments, the electronic computing device determines a length of the response to the query (for example, a number of words included in the response generated by the electronic computing device). In some embodiments, the electronic computing device determines that the response to the query is longer than a predetermined response length threshold (for example, ten words, fifty words, one hundred words, and the like)”, “In response to determining that that the response to the query is longer than the predetermined response length threshold, the electronic computing device transmits the response to the communication device 200 of the user 102 as text data over a text channel”).
Carbune and Yap are analogous art to the claimed invention because they are from a similar field of endeavor of digital assistant that determine the appropriate delivery method. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Carbune resulting in resolutions as disclosed by Yap with a reasonable expectation of success.
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify Carbune as described above to provide the user with the most useful adapted user interface that increase the user satisfaction and ability to understand and benefit from the provided information (¶10, “transmitting the response using a voice channel in the communication system may cause a technological problem of decreasing channel availability for other communication within the communication system (for example, communication between communication devices of other users). Thus, transmitting the response as voice data over a voice channel may not be desirable when channel availability of the communication system is low. Additionally, transmitting the response as voice data over a voice channel may not be desirable in other situations. For example, transmitting voice data is less desirable when the response to the query is lengthy and includes a substantial amount of information that may be difficult for a user to remember when provided aurally. As another example, transmitting voice data is less desirable when a user who made the query is located in a loud environment where he/she may be unable to hear the voice data output by a speaker”).
With regard to Claim 2,
Carbune-Yap teach the system of claim 1, wherein the instructions are executable by the one or more processors to:
select, according to a determination that a structure of the second data satisfies a third format distinct from the first format, the second user interface corresponding to the second format that satisfies the structure of the second data (Carbune ¶22, “automated assistant can cause content to be rendered via one or more different modalities”, ¶23, “ the automated assistant can render another output that includes less content and/or fewer modalities to render. For example, instead of rendering an audible output, the automated assistant can render a graphical interface output, such as a selectable link that, when selected, causes the automated assistant to render a status page that provides a detailed list of each appliance in the home and their operating status. In this way, a user exhibiting a lack of interaction with an automated assistant will not be disturbed by the automated assistant until their level of interaction increases”, system use multiple possible modalities to render data (audio, graphical control panel, selectable links, status page) and select between them (a graphical interface output instead an audible output). The graphical interface including selectable links and a full status page listing appliance operating status, presents structured data distinct from audio. Thus the system select a graphical format corresponding to the structure of the data and present it via a GUI). The same motivation to combine for claim 1 equally applies for current claim.
With regard to Claim 5,
Carbune-Yap teach the system of claim 1, wherein the instructions are executable by the one or more processors to:
exclude, according to a determination that a structure of the second data does not satisfy a second heuristic corresponding to the first format, the first user interface from presenting at least the portion of the second data (Carbune ¶22, “ automated assistant can bypass rendering another output”, ¶34, “ automated assistant can limit output from certain modalities and/or provide output from other modalities”, ¶23, “ automated assistant can render another output that includes less content and/or fewer modalities to render. For example, instead of rendering an audible output, the automated assistant can render a graphical interface output, such as a selectable link that, when selected, causes the automated assistant to render a status page that provides a detailed list of each appliance in the home and their operating status”, system determine that the data structure does not satisfy heuristic for the audio modality (first format) for example the detailed appliance status is not suited for audio only presentation. Therefore the audio presentation (first UI) is excluded from presenting data and a graphical presentation is relied on to present that data). The same motivation to combine for claim 1 equally applies for current claim.
With regard to Claim 6,
Carbune-Yap teach the system of claim 1, the heuristic indicating a type of presentation associated with a type of the second user interface (Carbune ¶22, “automated assistant can cause graphical content to be rendered at the automated assistant device (e.g., a graphical control panel for controlling, and/or indicating a status of, each appliance)”, ¶23, “automated assistant can render another output that includes less content and/or fewer modalities to render. For example, instead of rendering an audible output, the automated assistant can render a graphical interface output”, ¶60, “ Alternatively, or additionally, a volume of an automated assistant response, graphical content of an automated assistant response, pace of an automated assistant response, modality of an automated assistant response, graphical user interface content of an automated assistant response, voice for an automated assistant response, time between words and/or syllables in an automated assistant response, tense of phrases in the automated assistant response, and/or any other feature of an automated assistant response that is adjustable can be modifiable by the automated assistant 304 according to: level of interaction, whether one or more level of interaction thresholds have been satisfied, and/or whether a user profile indicates whether one or more features should be adjusted”, ¶45, “computing device 302 can lack a display device, thereby providing an audible user interface output, without providing a graphical user interface output”). The same motivation to combine for claim 1 equally applies for current claim.
With regard to Claim 7,
Carbune-Yap teach the system of claim 6, the type of presentation corresponding to at least one of a visual presentation or an audio presentation (Carbune ¶22, “automated assistant can cause graphical content to be rendered at the automated assistant device (e.g., a graphical control panel for controlling, and/or indicating a status of, each appliance)”, ¶23, “automated assistant can render another output that includes less content and/or fewer modalities to render. For example, instead of rendering an audible output, the automated assistant can render a graphical interface output”). The same motivation to combine for claim 6 equally applies for current claim.
With regard to Claim 8,
Carbune-Yap teach the system of claim 6, the type of the second user interface corresponding to at least one of a graphical user interface (GUI) or a virtual reality interface (Carbune ¶22, “automated assistant can cause graphical content to be rendered at the automated assistant device (e.g., a graphical control panel for controlling, and/or indicating a status of, each appliance)”, ¶23, “automated assistant can render another output that includes less content and/or fewer modalities to render. For example, instead of rendering an audible output, the automated assistant can render a graphical interface output”). The same motivation to combine for claim 1 equally applies for current claim.
With regard to Claim 9,
Carbune-Yap teach the system of claim 6, the type of the first user interface corresponding to a voice recognition interface (Carbune Fig. 1A, 106, Fig. 1B, 122, Fig. 2A, 206, ¶27, “In response to receiving the initial spoken utterance 106”, ¶61, “Such features can include an amount of automatic speech recognition (ASR) biasing and/or an amount of voice filtering that is performed by one or more devices”). The same motivation to combine for claim 1 equally applies for current claim.
With regard to Claim 10,
Claim 10 is similar in scope to claim 1; therefore it is rejected under similar rationale.
With regard to Claim 11,
Claim 11 is similar in scope to claim 2; therefore it is rejected under similar rationale.
With regard to Claim 14,
Claim 14 is similar in scope to claim 5; therefore it is rejected under similar rationale.
With regard to Claim 15,
Claim 15 is similar in scope to claim 6; therefore it is rejected under similar rationale.
With regard to Claim 16,
Claim 16 is similar in scope to claim 7; therefore it is rejected under similar rationale.
With regard to Claim 17,
Claim 17 is similar in scope to claim 8; therefore it is rejected under similar rationale.
With regard to Claim 18,
Claim 18 is similar in scope to claim 9; therefore it is rejected under similar rationale.
With regard to Claim 19,
Claim 19 is similar in scope to claim 1; therefore it is rejected under similar rationale. Carbune further teach a non-transitory computer readable medium storing instruction that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations (¶9, “a non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing instructions executable by one or more processors (e.g., central processing unit(s) (CPU(s)), graphics processing unit(s) (GPU(s)), and/or tensor processing unit(s) (TPU(s)) to perform a method such as one or more of the methods described herein”).
With regard to Claim 20,
Claim 20 is similar in scope to claim 2; therefore it is rejected under similar rationale.
Claims 3-4 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carbune et al. [US 2022/0028379 A1, hereinafter Carbune] in view of Yap et al. [US 2019/0373489 A1, hereinafter Yap] in view of Almecija et al. [US 2018/0365025 A1, hereinafter Almecija].
With regard to Claim 3,
Carbune-Yap teach the system of claim 1, wherein the instructions are executable by the one or more processors.
Carbune-Yap does not explicitly teach cause, according to the determination that the structure of the second data satisfies the heuristic corresponding to the second format, the first user interface to present an indication corresponding to the second user interface.
Almecija teach cause, according to the determination that the structure of the second data satisfies the heuristic corresponding to the second format, the first user interface to present an indication corresponding to the second user interface (¶102, “where the system can retrieve information in the profile that the user uses their tablet device a lot more than their mouse and keyboard device. The system can adapt the user interface for tablet usage and notify the user that there is a tablet (touch controlled) version of the user interface available”).
Carbune-Yap and Almecija are analogous art to the claimed invention because they are from a similar field of endeavor of providing an adapted user interface. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Carbune-Yap resulting in resolutions as disclosed by Almecija with a reasonable expectation of success.
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify Carbune-Yap as described above to provide the user experience system 104 provide the most useful adapted user interface for the user (Almecija, ¶102, “This information can help provide the user experience system 104 provide the most useful adapted user interface for the user”).
With regard to Claim 4,
Carbune-Yap teach the system of claim 1, wherein the instructions are executable by the one or more processors.
Carbune-Yap does not explicitly teach select, according to a determination that the second user interface is associated with the profile of the user, the second user interface.
Almecija teach select, according to a determination that the second user interface is associated with the profile of the user, the second user interface (¶102, “user profile can include that user's interactions with other user interfaces. This can include how often they use voice interfaces and digital assistants, mouse and screen user interfaces, touch user interfaces, and other types of user interfaces. For example, if the person has eight voice controlled virtual assistant speakers around their house, the system can bias towards providing a voice controlled adaptive user interface. Another example is where the system can retrieve information in the profile that the user uses their tablet device a lot more than their mouse and keyboard device. The system can adapt the user interface for tablet usage”).
Carbune-Yap and Almecija are analogous art to the claimed invention because they are from a similar field of endeavor of providing an adapted user interface. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Carbune-Yap resulting in resolutions as disclosed by Almecija with a reasonable expectation of success.
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify Carbune-Yap as described above to provide the user experience system 104 provide the most useful adapted user interface for the user (Almecija, ¶102, “This information can help provide the user experience system 104 provide the most useful adapted user interface for the user”).
With regard to Claim 12,
Claim 12 is similar in scope to claim 3; therefore it is rejected under similar rationale.
With regard to Claim 13,
Claim 13 is similar in scope to claim 4; therefore it is rejected under similar rationale.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks P. 6-9, filed 7/8/2026, with respect to 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 101 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks P. 11-12, filed 7/8/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim 1 and similar independent claims 10, and 19 under 35 USC 102(a)(1) 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 Yap et al. Yap teach the argued requirement of comparing one or more attributes of the response indicative of a structure of the second data with a heuristic to determine that the structure of the second data satisfies the heuristic, the heuristic corresponding to a second format See at least ¶91, “In some embodiments, the electronic computing device determines a length of the response to the query (for example, a number of words included in the response generated by the electronic computing device). In some embodiments, the electronic computing device determines that the response to the query is longer than a predetermined response length threshold (for example, ten words, fifty words, one hundred words, and the like)”, “In response to determining that that the response to the query is longer than the predetermined response length threshold, the electronic computing device transmits the response to the communication device 200 of the user 102 as text data over a text channel”; select, according to the determination that the structure of the second data satisfies the heuristic corresponding to the second format, a second user interface configured to present an output corresponding to the selected second format See at least ¶91, “In some embodiments, the electronic computing device determines a length of the response to the query (for example, a number of words included in the response generated by the electronic computing device). In some embodiments, the electronic computing device determines that the response to the query is longer than a predetermined response length threshold (for example, ten words, fifty words, one hundred words, and the like)”, “In response to determining that that the response to the query is longer than the predetermined response length threshold, the electronic computing device transmits the response to the communication device 200 of the user 102 as text data over a text channel”. Carbune and Yap are analogous art to the claimed invention because they are from a similar field of endeavor of digital assistant that determine the appropriate delivery method. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Carbune resulting in resolutions as disclosed by Yap with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify Carbune as described above to provide the user with the most useful adapted user interface that increase the user satisfaction and ability to understand and benefit from the provided information (¶10, “transmitting the response using a voice channel in the communication system may cause a technological problem of decreasing channel availability for other communication within the communication system (for example, communication between communication devices of other users). Thus, transmitting the response as voice data over a voice channel may not be desirable when channel availability of the communication system is low. Additionally, transmitting the response as voice data over a voice channel may not be desirable in other situations. For example, transmitting voice data is less desirable when the response to the query is lengthy and includes a substantial amount of information that may be difficult for a user to remember when provided aurally. As another example, transmitting voice data is less desirable when a user who made the query is located in a loud environment where he/she may be unable to hear the voice data output by a speaker”).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure.
US Patent Application Publication No. 20120109868 filed by Murillo et al. that disclose the ability to select and adapt different forms of output See at least Abstract.
Examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior arts of record in the body of this action for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and Figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the response, to consider fully the entire references as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior arts or disclosed by the examiner. It is noted that any citation to specific pages, columns, figures, or lines in the prior art references any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331-33, 216 USPQ 1038-39 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)).
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 MOHAMED ABOU EL SEOUD whose telephone number is (303)297-4285. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9:00am-6:00pm MT.
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, Michelle Bechtold can be reached at (571) 431-0762. 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.
/MOHAMED ABOU EL SEOUD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2148
