DETAILED ACTION
This office action is responsive to the above identified application filed 11/8/2023. 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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement with references submitted 11/8/2023, has been considered and entered into the file.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed inventions are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
While independent claims 1, 10 and 19 are each directed to a statutory category, it recites a series of steps pertaining to analyze received data to identify features that are used to predict machine failure, which appears to be directed to an abstract idea (mental process, mathematical concept).
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the instant application is directed to non-patentable subject matter. Specifically, the claims are directed toward at least one judicial exception without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The rationale for this determination is in accordance with the guidelines of USPTO, applies to all statutory categories, and is explained in detail below.
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, (1) it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, (2a) it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), and if so (2b), it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Examples of abstract ideas include certain methods of organizing human activities; a mental processes; and mathematical concepts, (2019 PEG)
STEP 1.
Per Step 1, the claims are determined to include machine, process, and manufacture as in independent Claim 1, 10, and 19, and in the therefrom dependent claims. Therefore, the claims are directed to a statutory eligibility category.
At step 2A, prong 1, The invention is directed to identifying output and selection of output format based on different rules which is akin to Mental Process (see Alice), As such, the claims include an abstract idea. When considering the limitations individually and as a whole the limitations directed to the abstract idea are:
“generate, based on the query and first data corresponding to the profile of the user, second data as a response to the query; 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” (Mental process, observation, evaluation and judgment).
The claim recites additional elements as
“A system, comprising: at least one processing circuit comprising at least one memory storing instructions therein that are executable by one or more processors” (“Using a computer as a tool to perform a mental process”, MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C));,
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 (insignificant extra-solution activity, MPEP 2106.05(g));
cause the second user interface to present an output in the selected second format corresponding to at least a portion of the second data (insignificant extra-solution activity, MPEP 2106.05(g)).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The elements are recited at a high level of generality, i.e. a generic computing system performing generic functions including generic processing of data. Accordingly the additional elements do not integrate the abstract into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore the claims are directed to an abstract idea. (2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance ("2019 PEG"). Thus, under Step 2A of the Mayo framework, the Examiner holds that the claims are directed to concepts identified as abstract.
STEP 2B.
Because the claims include one or more abstract ideas, the examiner now proceeds to Step 2B of the analysis, in which the examiner considers if the claims include individually or as an ordered combination limitations that are "significantly more" than the abstract idea itself. This includes analysis as to whether there is an improvement to either the "computer itself," "another technology," the "technical field," or significantly more than what is "well-understood, routine, or conventional" (WURC) in the related arts.
The instant application includes in Claim 1 additional steps to those deemed to be abstract idea(s).
When taken the steps individually, these steps are:
“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” (“Using a computer as a tool to perform a mental process”, MPEP 2106.05(f)(2));
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 (Well-Understood, Routine, Conventional Activity, sending, receiving, displaying and processing data are common and basic functions in computer technology, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i));
cause the second user interface to present an output in the selected second format corresponding to at least a portion of the second data (Well-Understood, Routine, Conventional Activity, sending, receiving, displaying and processing data are common and basic functions in computer technology, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i)).
In the instant case, Claim 1 is directed to above mentioned abstract idea. Technical functions such as receiving, and extracting are common and basic functions in computer technology. The individual limitations are recited at a high level and do not provide any specific technology or techniques to perform the functions claimed.
In addition, when the claims are taken as a whole, as an ordered combination, the combination of steps does not add "significantly more" by virtue of considering the steps as a whole, as an ordered combination. The instant application, therefore, still appears only to implement the abstract idea to the particular technological environments using what is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the related arts. The steps are still a combination made to the abstract idea. The additional steps only add to those abstract ideas using well understood and conventional functions, and the claims do not show improved ways of, for example, an unconventional non-routine functions for analyzing model operations or updating the model that could then be pointed to as being "significantly more" than the abstract ideas themselves.
Moreover, Examiner was not able to identify any "unconventional" steps, which, when considered in the ordered combination with the other steps, could have transformed the nature of the abstract idea previously identified. The instant application, therefore, still appears to only implement the abstract ideas to the particular technological environments using what is well-understood, routine, and conventional (WURC) in the related arts.
Further, note that the limitations, in the instant claims, are done by the generically
recited computing devices. The limitations are merely instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computing device that is recited in an abstract level and require no more than a generic computing devices to perform generic functions.
Claim 19 recites a system comprising “non-transitory computer readable medium storing instruction that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations” configured to perform the same method as set forth in claim 1, the added element of “non-transitory computer readable medium storing instruction that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations” do not transform the judicial exception into a practical application because they amount to a mere instruction to apply the judicial exception to a generic computer. The additional elements are also not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the action of implementing the method on a general purpose computer with at least one processor and at least one memory is tantamount to a mere instruction to apply the judicial exception to a computer.
Claim 19 is therefore rejected according to the same findings and rationale as provided above.
Independent claims 10 and 19 are the same analogy and rejected using similar analysis as claim 1.
CONCLUSION
It is therefore determined that the instant application not only represents an abstract idea identified as such based on criteria defined by the Courts and on USPTO examination guidelines, but also lacks the capability to bring about "Improvements to another technology or technical field" (Alice), bring about "Improvements to the functioning of the computer itself" (Alice), "Apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine" (Bilski), "Effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing" (Diehr), "Add a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field" (Mayo), "Add unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application" (Mayo), or contain "Other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment" (Alice), transformed a traditionally subjective process performed by humans into a mathematically automated process executed on computers (McRO), or limitations directed to improvements in computer related technology, including claims directed to software (Enfish).
The dependent claims, when considered individually and as a whole, likewise do not provide "significantly more" than the abstract idea for similar reasons as the independent claim.
claims 2 disclose “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” (Mental process). Claim 2 does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and did not add significantly more to the abstract idea. claims 3 disclose “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” (displaying data is an insignificant extra-solution activity, MPEP 2106.05(g) which is Well-Understood, Routine, Conventional Activity, sending, receiving, displaying and processing data are common and basic functions in computer technology, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i)). Claim 3 does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and did not add significantly more to the abstract idea. claims 4 disclose “select, according to a determination that the second user interface is associated with the profile of the user, the second user interface” (Mental process). Claim 4 does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and did not add significantly more to the abstract idea. claims 5 disclose “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” (the determination of the data to exclude from display is Mental process and displaying data is an insignificant extra-solution activity, MPEP 2106.05(g) which is Well-Understood, Routine, Conventional Activity, sending, receiving, displaying and processing data are common and basic functions in computer technology, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i)). Claim 5 does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and did not add significantly more to the abstract idea. claims 6 disclose “heuristic indicating a type of presentation associated with a type of the second user interface” (data description , which is directed to generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use). Claim 6 does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and did not add significantly more to the abstract idea. Claim 7 disclose “the type of presentation corresponding to at least one of a visual presentation or an audio presentation” (data description , which is directed to generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use). Claim 7 does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and did not add significantly more to the abstract idea. Claim 8 disclose “the type of the second user interface corresponding to at least one of a graphical user interface (GUI) or a virtual reality interface” (data description , which is directed to generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use). Claim 8 does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and did not add significantly more to the abstract idea. Claim 9 disclose “the type of the first user interface corresponding to a voice recognition interface” (data description , which is directed to generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use). Claim 9 does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and did not add significantly more to the abstract idea.
The dependent claims which impose additional limitations also fail to claim patent eligible subject matter because the limitations cannot be considered statutory. The dependent claim(s) have been examined individually and in combination with the preceding claims, however they do not cure the deficiencies of claim 1 ; where all claims are directed to the same abstract idea, "addressing each claim of the asserted patents [is] unnecessary." Content Extraction &. Transmission LLC v, Wells Fargo Bank, Natl Ass'n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2014). If applicant believes the dependent claims are directed towards patent eligible subject matter, they are invited to point out the specific limitations in the claim that are directed towards patent eligible subject matter. Claims for the other statutory classes are similarly analyzed.
For at least these reasons, the claimed inventions of each of dependent claims 2-9, 11-18, and 20,are directed or indirect to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more and are rejected under 35 USC 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 5-11, 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Carbune et al. [US 2022/0028379 A1, hereinafter Carbune].
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 …”, ¶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“, ¶59, “content selected for a particular responsive output can be selected based on a user profile associated with a particular user. Alternatively, or additionally, one or more processes for determining a level of interaction of a user can be selected based on the user profile …“, ¶84, “selecting, based on the user profile corresponding to the user, a trained machine learning model from one or more trained machine learning model”, Fig. 4, ¶16, “automated assistant that modifies certain features of a response according to a detected level of interaction between a user and the automated assistant”, ¶22, “ a type of interaction that is contributing to the level of interaction of a user can be a basis for how the automated assistant responds to the user … instead of the automated assistant providing supplemental information, the automated assistant can bypass rendering another output”, ¶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”, 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);
generate, based on the query and first data corresponding to the profile of the user, second data as a response to the query (¶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“,¶59, “content selected for a particular responsive output can be selected based on a user profile associated with a particular user. Alternatively, or additionally, one or more processes for determining a level of interaction of a user can be selected based on the user profile …“,¶¶85-86, “determining the first level of interaction of the user further includes: selecting, based on the user profile corresponding to the user, a trained machine learning model from one or more trained machine learning model that are associated with different users of the automated assistant”, ¶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”);
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 (¶¶17-18, “automated assistant can determine a level of interaction for the user”, ¶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 … 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)“, graphical control panel present structured status data (e.g. appliance states), which is suitable for graphical presentation supporting selection of graphical format, ¶34, “when the user 102 is determined to be exhibiting a decrease in their level of interaction, the automated assistant can cease providing additional output until the level of interaction increases or otherwise satisfies a particular interaction … 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. Alternatively, or additionally, the automated assistant can cause the other automated assistant device 124”, system determined based on interaction signals particular presentation format that is more appropriate (audio or graphical) so heuristic is governing selection); 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. 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)“, 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 “).
With regard to Claim 2,
Carbune teach the system of claim 1, the 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 (¶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).
With regard to Claim 5,
Carbune teach the system of claim 1, the 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 (¶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).
With regard to Claim 6,
Carbune teach the system of claim 1, the heuristic indicating a type of presentation associated with a type of the second user interface (¶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”).
With regard to Claim 7,
Carbune teach the system of claim 6, the type of presentation corresponding to at least one of a visual presentation or an audio presentation (¶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”).
With regard to Claim 8,
Carbune 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 (¶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”).
With regard to Claim 9,
Carbune teach the system of claim 6, the type of the first user interface corresponding to a voice recognition interface (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”).
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.
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 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 Almecija et al. [US 2018/0365025 A1, hereinafter Almecija].
With regard to Claim 3,
Carbune teach the system of claim 1.
Carbune 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 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 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 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 teach the system of claim 1.
Carbune 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 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 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 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.
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)).
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