DETAILED ACTION
Introduction
This office action is in response to Applicant’s amendment filed on February 9, 2026.
Claims 1-3, 6-8 and 15 have been amended. Claims 16-21 have been newly added. Claims 1-21 are pending in the application. As such, claims 1-21 have been examined.
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 .
Drawings
The drawings were received on February 14, 2024. These drawings have been accepted and considered by the Examiner.
Response to Amendments and Arguments
In view of the amendments to claims, the amendments to claims 1-3, 6-8 and 15, and the addition of new claims 16-21, have been acknowledged and entered.
In view of the amendments to claims, the objections to claims 2-3 and 6-8, have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, on page 2, regarding “a human mind cannot be "integrated" with a digital network of devices” is not persuasive. A person is able to use a generic digital network of devices while performing the claimed inventive elements. Therefore, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 is maintained, and updated according to the amendments, further below.
In view of the amendments to claims, the rejections to claims 1-15 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been withdrawn.
In light of the amendments to the claims, new grounds for rejection for claims 1-21 under 35 U.S.C. 103 are provided in the response below. New grounds for rejection is based at least upon the newly added claims and the following new elements:
comprising one or more text segments;
generating, based on the instantiated prompt and using a language model integrated with the network of two or more network-connected devices, a language model output, the language model output describing a functionality of the network of two or more network-connected devices.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the prior art rejections under 35 U.S.C 103, received on February 9, 2026, have been fully considered.
Applicant’s remaining arguments with respect to claims 1-21 have been considered, are directed to the newly amended matter in the claims, are not considered to be persuasive, and are addressed accordingly in the updated rejection rationale below.
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 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite:
A method comprising:
[claim 21 only] one or more processors; and
[claim 21 only] computer-readable media storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising:
obtaining metadata associated with a network of two or more network-connected devices;
selecting a templated prompt from a list of one or more templated prompts, each of the one or more templated prompts comprising one or more text segments;
integrating at least portions of data from the obtained metadata into the selected templated prompt sufficient to produce an instantiated prompt, the instantiated prompt comprising the one or more text segments and the at least portions of data;
generating, based on the instantiated prompt and using a language model integrated with the network of two or more network-connected devices, a language model output;
the language model output describing a functionality of the network of two or more network-connected devices; and
providing, based on the language model output and the obtained metadata, a notification to a user associated with at least one network-connected device of the two or more network-connected devices, the notification notifying the user of curated information associated with the network of two or more network-connected devices.
The claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind. For example,
“obtaining metadata associated with a network of two or more network-connected devices” in the context of this claim encompasses a person monitoring the devices in a connected network to collect data and information,
“selecting a templated prompt from a list of one or more templated prompts, each of the one or more templated prompts comprising one or more text segments” in the context of this claim encompasses a person choosing a prompt template from a list or templates, where the templates are made up of words,
“integrating at least portions of data from the obtained metadata into the selected templated prompt sufficient to produce an instantiated prompt, the instantiated prompt comprising the one or more text segments and the at least portions of data” in the context of this claim encompasses a person filling in the blanks of the template with data retrieved from the network devices,
“generating, based on the instantiated prompt and using a language model integrated with the network of two or more network-connected devices, a language model output” in the context of this claim encompasses a person feeding the prompt to a LLM and obtaining a response,
“the language model output describing a functionality of the network of two or more network-connected devices” in the context of this claim encompasses a person feeding the prompt, which requires the output to describe a functionality of the network devices, to a LLM and obtaining a response,
“providing, based on the language model output and the obtained metadata, a notification to a user associated with at least one network-connected device of the two or more network-connected devices, the notification notifying the user of curated information associated with the network of two or more network-connected devices” in the context of this claim encompasses a person giving information to a user that includes the LLM output and the retrieved data.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites these additional elements. These additional elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
processors
computer-readable media
a network of two or more network-connected devices
a language model
at least one network-connected device.
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea that do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
The dependent claims do not add limitations that would either integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application or could help the Claim as a whole to amount to significantly more than the Abstract idea identified for the Independent Claim.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites:
further comprising:
detecting, prior to selecting the templated prompt, an initiating event, the initiating event comprising at least one of an identification of a pattern within the obtained metadata, an expiration of time since a trigger event, an interaction by the user with a network-connected device of the two or more network-connected devices, or an interaction by the user with information associated with a network-connected device of the two or more network-connected devices.
The additional limitations of the claim do not preclude the method from practically being performed in the mind. For example,
“detecting, prior to selecting the templated prompt, an initiating event, the initiating event comprising at least one of an identification of a pattern within the obtained metadata, an expiration of time since a trigger event, an interaction by the user with a network-connected device of the two or more network-connected devices, or an interaction by the user with information associated with a network-connected device of the two or more network-connected devices” in the context of this claim encompasses a person observing an event occurrence, and noting the event is one of the four specific events of interest listed.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites these additional elements. These additional elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
a network-connected device
the two or more network-connected devices.
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea that do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites:
wherein the detecting of the initiating event comprises the identification of the pattern within the obtained metadata, the identification comprising a machine-learned model recognizing the pattern over a duration of time.
The additional limitations of the claim do not preclude the method from practically being performed in the mind. For example,
“detecting of the initiating event comprises the identification of the pattern within the obtained metadata, the identification comprising a machine-learned model recognizing the pattern over a duration of time” in the context of this claim encompasses a person observing an event occurrence, and noting the event is a pattern developed over a period of time.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites these additional elements. These additional elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
a machine-learned model.
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea that do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites:
wherein the detecting of the initiating event comprises the expiration of time since the trigger event, the trigger event comprising an activation of a network-connected device of the two or more network-connected devices or an addition of a network-connected device to the network of two or more network-connected devices.
The additional limitations of the claim do not preclude the method from practically being performed in the mind. For example,
“detecting of the initiating event comprises the expiration of time since the trigger event, the trigger event comprising an activation of a network-connected device of the two or more network-connected devices or an addition of a network-connected device to the network of two or more network-connected devices” in the context of this claim encompasses a person observing an event occurrence, and noting the event is a lapse of time from an event of activating a device or adding a device.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites these additional elements. These additional elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
a network-connected device
the two or more network-connected devices.
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea that do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites:
wherein the detecting of the initiating event comprises the interaction by the user with the network-connected device, the interaction comprising an engagement by the user with an application interface associated with the network of two or more network-connected devices on the network-connected device.
The additional limitations of the claim do not preclude the method from practically being performed in the mind. For example,
“detecting of the initiating event comprises the interaction by the user with the network-connected device, the interaction comprising an engagement by the user with an application interface associated with the network of two or more network-connected devices on the network-connected device” in the context of this claim encompasses a person observing an event occurrence, and noting the event is one of the user interacting with a device with an interface.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites these additional elements. These additional elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
a network-connected device
the two or more network-connected devices.
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea that do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites:
wherein the list of one or more templated prompts comprise a feature discovery prompt,
and wherein:
selecting the templated prompt from the list of one or more templated prompts comprises selecting the feature discovery prompt; and
integrating at least portions of data from the obtained metadata into the selected templated prompt comprises integrating at least portions of data into the feature discovery prompt that are relevant to features associated with a network-connected device that a user has recently interacted with, a network-connected device that was recently activated, or a network-connected device that was recently added to the network of two or more network-connected devices.
The additional limitations of the claim do not preclude the method from practically being performed in the mind. For example,
“wherein the list of one or more templated prompts comprise a feature discovery prompt” in the context of this claim encompasses a person ensuring the list of prompts includes a feature discovery prompt,
“selecting the templated prompt from the list of one or more templated prompts comprises selecting the feature discovery prompt” in the context of this claim encompasses a person choosing the feature discovery prompt,
“integrating at least portions of data from the obtained metadata into the selected templated prompt comprises integrating at least portions of data into the feature discovery prompt that are relevant to features associated with a network-connected device that a user has recently interacted with, a network-connected device that was recently activated, or a network-connected device that was recently added to the network of two or more network-connected devices” in the context of this claim encompasses a person filling in the blanks of the prompt using the collected data which includes features identified as not having been used yet, and noting the event is one of the three specific events of interest listed.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites these additional elements. These additional elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
a network-connected device
the two or more network-connected devices.
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea that do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites:
wherein the list of one or more templated prompts comprise an automation creation prompt, and wherein:
selecting the templated prompt from the list of one or more templated prompts comprises selecting the automation creation prompt; and
integrating at least portions of data from the obtained metadata into the selected templated prompt comprises integrating at least portions of data into the automation creation prompt that are relevant to automation routines available with a network-connected device that a user has recently interacted with, a network-connected device that was recently activated, or a network-connected device that was recently added to the network of two or more network-connected devices.
The additional limitations of the claim do not preclude the method from practically being performed in the mind. For example,
“wherein the list of one or more templated prompts comprise an automation creation prompt” in the context of this claim encompasses a person ensuring the list of prompts includes an automation creation prompt,
“selecting the templated prompt from the list of one or more templated prompts comprises selecting the automation creation prompt” in the context of this claim encompasses a person choosing the automation creation prompt,
“integrating at least portions of data from the obtained metadata into the selected templated prompt comprises integrating at least portions of data into the feature discovery prompt that are relevant to automation routines available with a network-connected device that a user has recently interacted with, a network-connected device that was recently activated, or a network-connected device that was recently added to the network of two or more network-connected devices” in the context of this claim encompasses a person filling in the blanks of the prompt using the collected data which includes a not yet created prompt about automation routines available, and noting the event is one of the three specific events of interest listed.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites these additional elements. These additional elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
a network-connected device
the two or more network-connected devices.
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea that do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites:
wherein the list of one or more templated prompts comprise a suggestion prompt,
and wherein:
selecting the templated prompt from the list of one or more templated prompts comprises selecting the suggestion prompt; and
integrating at least portions of data from the obtained metadata into the selected templated prompt comprises integrating at least portions of data into the suggestion prompt that are in response to a query provided by a user and relevant to usage habits or activities of the user as indicated by the obtained metadata.
The additional limitations of the claim do not preclude the method from practically being performed in the mind. For example,
“wherein the list of one or more templated prompts comprise a suggestion prompt” in the context of this claim encompasses a person ensuring the list of prompts includes a suggestion prompt,
“selecting the templated prompt from the list of one or more templated prompts comprises selecting the suggestion prompt” in the context of this claim encompasses a person choosing the suggestion prompt,
“integrating at least portions of data from the obtained metadata into the selected templated prompt comprises integrating at least portions of data into the suggestion prompt that are in response to a query provided by a user and relevant to usage habits or activities of the user as indicated by the obtained metadata,” in the context of this claim encompasses a person filling in the blanks of the prompt using the collected data which includes user query and is related to the user’s habits as identified by the collected data.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites no additional elements.
Accordingly, these no additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the no additional elements do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites:
wherein the query provided by the user comprises a question that seeks a suggestion for information associated with at least one network-connected device of the two or more network-connected devices.
The additional limitations of the claim do not preclude the method from practically being performed in the mind. For example,
“the query provided by the user comprises a question that seeks a suggestion for information associated with at least one network-connected device of the two or more network-connected devices” in the context of this claim encompasses a person determining that the user needs information about or from a certain device.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites these additional elements. These additional elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
a network-connected device
the two or more network-connected devices.
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea that do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites:
wherein the notification comprises at least one of an audio output or a visual output.
The additional limitations of the claim do not preclude the method from practically being performed in the mind. For example,
“the notification comprises at least one of an audio output or a visual output,” in the context of this claim encompasses a person alerting user with sound or light.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites no additional elements.
Accordingly, these no additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the no additional elements do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites:
further comprising:
determining, based on the obtained metadata and prior to providing the notification to the user, a time delay between the generating of the language model output and the providing of the notification; and
delaying, in response to the generating of the language model output, the providing of the notification in accordance with the determined time delay.
The additional limitations of the claim do not preclude the method from practically being performed in the mind. For example,
“determining, based on the obtained metadata and prior to providing the notification to the user, a time delay between the generating of the language model output and the providing of the notification” in the context of this claim encompasses a person evaluating an amount of time since generating the output before alerting the user,
“delaying, in response to the generating of the language model output, the providing of the notification in accordance with the determined time delay,” in the context of this claim encompasses a person alerting the user after the amount of time has lapsed.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites no additional elements.
Accordingly, these no additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the no additional elements do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites:
wherein the determining of the time delay is based on at least one of a location of the user, an activity of the user, a number of notifications on the at least one network-connected device, an operating state of the at least one network-connected device, or a power level of the at least one network-connected device.
The additional limitations of the claim do not preclude the method from practically being performed in the mind. For example,
“determining of the time delay is based on at least one of a location of the user, an activity of the user, a number of notifications on the at least one network-connected device, an operating state of the at least one network-connected device, or a power level of the at least one network-connected device” in the context of this claim encompasses a person evaluating an amount of time since generating the output before alerting the user, and the time is related to one of the five conditions listed.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites these additional elements. These additional elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
a network-connected device.
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea that do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites:
further comprising:
obtaining, prior to the integrating of at least portions of data from the obtained metadata into the selected templated prompt, documentation associated with a network-connected device of the two or more network-connected devices.
The additional limitations of the claim do not preclude the method from practically being performed in the mind. For example,
“obtaining, prior to the integrating of at least portions of data from the obtained metadata into the selected templated prompt, documentation associated with a network-connected device of the two or more network-connected devices” in the context of this claim encompasses a person getting documentation for a certain device.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites these additional elements. These additional elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
a network-connected device
the two or more network-connected devices.
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea that do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites:
wherein the notification comprises a pop-up notification, a text message, or an email.
The additional limitations of the claim do not preclude the method from practically being performed in the mind. For example,
“the notification comprises a pop-up notification, a text message, or an email,” in the context of this claim encompasses a person alerting the user with a pop-up, a text, or an email.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites no additional elements.
Accordingly, these no additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the no additional elements do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites:
wherein the one or more text segments comprise letters, and the letters are arranged within at least one sentence fragment in the selected templated prompt.
The additional limitations of the claim do not preclude the method from practically being performed in the mind. For example,
“the one or more text segments comprise letters, and the letters are arranged within at least one sentence fragment in the selected templated prompt,” in the context of this claim encompasses a person ensuring the text segments correspond to letters and the letters combine to create at least a part of a sentence.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites no additional elements.
Accordingly, these no additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the no additional elements do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites:
wherein the obtained metadata includes interaction history data indicating a frequency of user interaction with the at least one network-connected device, and
wherein the templated prompt is selected based on the frequency being below a threshold.
The additional limitations of the claim do not preclude the method from practically being performed in the mind. For example,
“wherein the obtained metadata includes interaction history data indicating a frequency of user interaction with the at least one network-connected device,” in the context of this claim encompasses a person ensuring the obtained metadata correspond to past activity between the user and some devices,
“wherein the templated prompt is selected based on the frequency being below a threshold,” in the context of this claim encompasses a person ensuring the prompt selected is based on a less than desired activity level.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites no additional elements.
Accordingly, these no additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the no additional elements do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites:
wherein the language model output describing the functionality includes a step-by-step instruction for enabling a disabled capability of the at least one network-connected device.
The additional limitations of the claim do not preclude the method from practically being performed in the mind. For example,
“wherein the language model output describing the functionality includes a step-by-step instruction for enabling a disabled capability of the at least one network-connected device,” in the context of this claim encompasses a person ensuring the output corresponds to instruction to enable a device.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites no additional elements.
Accordingly, these no additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the no additional elements do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites:
wherein the notification includes a dynamic user interface element that, when selected, automatically configures a setting of the at least one network-connected device to implement the functionality.
The additional limitations of the claim do not preclude the method from practically being performed in the mind. For example,
“wherein the notification includes a dynamic user interface element that, when selected, automatically configures a setting of the at least one network-connected device to implement the functionality,” in the context of this claim encompasses a person ensuring the system automatically reconfigures the device to have the function.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites no additional elements.
Accordingly, these no additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the no additional elements do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites:
wherein the obtained metadata includes a device state of a first network-connected device and a device state of a second network-connected device, and
wherein the functionality described by the language model output includes a cross-device automation routine linking the first network-connected device and the second network-connected device.
The additional limitations of the claim do not preclude the method from practically being performed in the mind. For example,
“wherein the obtained metadata includes a device state of a first network-connected device and a device state of a second network-connected device,” in the context of this claim encompasses a person ensuring the state of the devices is included in the metadata,
“wherein the functionality described by the language model output includes a cross-device automation routine linking the first network-connected device and the second network-connected device,” in the context of this claim encompasses a person ensuring the function includes pairing the devices.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites no additional elements.
Accordingly, these no additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the no additional elements do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites:
wherein the one or more text segments comprise one or more tokens.
The additional limitations of the claim do not preclude the method from practically being performed in the mind. For example,
“wherein the one or more text segments comprise one or more tokens,” in the context of this claim encompasses a person ensuring the one or more text segments comprise one or more tokens.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites no additional elements.
Accordingly, these no additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the no additional elements do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
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 1-5, 10, 13-14 and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karp et al. (WO 2015200342 A1), hereinafter Karp, in view of Rastogi et al. (US Patent Pub. No. 20250053799 A1), hereinafter Rastogi.
Regarding claims 1 and 21, Karp teaches a method and a system (Karp in [0348] teaches a method for providing control of a smart electronic device)
[claim 21 only] one or more processors (Karp in [0268] teaches using computer instructions stored on one or more tangible, non-transitory computer-readable media and executed by a processor);
and
[claim 21 only] computer-readable media storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations (Karp in [0268] teaches using computer instructions stored on one or more tangible, non-transitory computer-readable media and executed by a processor)
comprising:
obtaining metadata associated with a network of two or more network-connected devices (Karp in [0199] teaches a metadata section may be included in each response, and in [0083] teaches a plurality of devices, including intelligent, multi-sensing, network-connected devices, that can integrate seamlessly with each other);
[integrated with the network of two or more network-connected devices, a language model output], the language model output describing a functionality of the network of two or more network-connected devices (Karp in [0409] teaches the vehicular application or other application may provide an automatic prompt suggesting to set one or more of the smart devices (e.g., thermostat) to "HOME" mode (e.g., not "AWAY"));
and
providing, [based on the language model output and the obtained metadata], a notification to a user associated with at least one network-connected device of the two or more network-connected devices (Karp in [0137] teaches detecting sounds of pests with network devices, and notifying the occupants to suggest they hire a pest control company, and in [0410] teaches the notification may be sent or pushed to a primary user of the networked devices),
the notification notifying the user of curated information associated with the network of two or more network-connected devices (Karp in [0137] teaches detecting sounds of pests with network devices, and notifying the occupants to suggest they hire a pest control company, and in [0410] teaches the notification may be sent or pushed to a primary user of the networked devices).
Karp does not teach, however Rastogi teaches
selecting a templated prompt from a list of one or more templated prompts (Rastogi in [0065] teaches selecting an AI prompt template from a plurality of AI prompt templates),
each of the one or more templated prompts comprising one or more text segments; (Rastogi in [0026] teaches the prompt may include tokenizing the prompt into tokens, and in [0023] teaches using sequences of tokens, which may be in the form of natural language (e.g., human-like text));
integrating at least portions of data from the obtained metadata into the selected templated prompt sufficient to produce an instantiated prompt (Rastogi in [0089] teaches generating the AI prompt includes, based on the selected dynamic context signals, selecting a particular AI prompt template from a plurality of AI prompt templates, each of the AI prompt templates including static portions and dynamic portions; and populating the dynamic portions of the particular AI prompt template with the dynamic context (portions of data from the obtained metadata) signals to generate the AI prompt),
the instantiated prompt comprising the one or more text segments and the at least portions of data (Rastogi in [0089] teaches generating the AI prompt (instantiated prompt) includes, based on the selected dynamic context signals, selecting a particular AI prompt template from a plurality of AI prompt templates, each of the AI prompt templates including static portions (tokens) and dynamic portions; and populating the dynamic portions of the particular AI prompt template with the dynamic context (portions of data) signals to generate the AI prompt, and in [0023] teaches using sequences of tokens, which may be in the form of natural language (e.g., human-like text));
generating, based on the instantiated prompt and using a language model integrated with the network of two or more network-connected devices, a language model output (Rastogi in [0019] teaches the AI model may be a large language model (LLM), and in [0023] teaches the generative AI model is trained to generate sequences of tokens, which may be in the form of natural language (e.g., human-like text), and in [0087] teaches navigation between different applications may be decided by using context signals from different sources or applications, for instance, with a weather-based visualization within a productivity application, there is the possibility to perform app switching to a weather application, and in [0021] teaches the operating environment is a multi-application environment by which a user may view and interact with multiple applications through multiple application UIs).
Rastogi is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of large language models (LLMs). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Karp further in view of Rastogi to allow for using an AI model which is trained to generate sequences of tokens, which may be in the form of natural language. Motivation to do so would allow for a user to orient his or her day without the need to view multiple applications or data sources-resulting in a further increase in productivity (Rastogi [0087]).
Regarding claim 2, Karp, as modified above, teaches the method of claim 1.
Karp further teaches
further comprising:
detecting, prior to selecting the templated prompt, an initiating event (Karp in [0436] teaches an initiating event of an energy saving nature, Rush Hour Rewards event, which initiates a series of energy saving actions),
the initiating event comprising at least one of
an identification of a pattern within the obtained metadata (Karp in [0124] teaches patterns in the collected data by which the events are identified),
an expiration of time since a trigger event (Karp in [0076] teaches detecting operation of one or more devices within a time window),
an interaction by the user with a network-connected device of the two or more network-connected devices (Karp in [0072] teaches a user-interface component may include a click-and-rotate annular ring component that may enable the user to interact with the component by rotating the ring (e.g., to adjust a setting) and/or by clicking the ring inwards (e.g., to select an adjusted setting or to select an option)),
or
an interaction by the user with information associated with a network-connected device of the two or more network-connected devices.
Regarding claim 3, Karp, as modified above, teaches the method of claim 2.
Karp further teaches
wherein the detecting of the initiating event comprises
the identification of the pattern within the obtained metadata (Karp in [0124] teaches patterns in the collected data by which the events are identified),
the identification comprising a machine-learned model recognizing the pattern over a duration of time (Karp in [0125] teaches using artificial intelligence at a central server to determine patterns).
Regarding claim 4, Karp, as modified above, teaches the method of claim 2.
Karp further teaches
wherein the detecting of the initiating event comprises
the expiration of time since the trigger event (Karp in [0076] teaches detecting operation of one or more devices within a time window),
the trigger event comprising an activation of a network-connected device of the two or more network-connected devices (Karp in [0076] teaches detecting operation of one or more devices within a time window)
or
an addition of a network-connected device to the network of two or more network-connected devices (Karp in [0225] teaches each device added gets a new device id).
Regarding claim 5, Karp, as modified above, teaches the method of claim 2.
Karp further teaches
wherein the detecting of the initiating event comprises
the interaction by the user with the network-connected device (Karp in [0072] teaches a user-interface component may include a click-and-rotate annular ring component that may enable the user to interact with the component by rotating the ring (e.g., to adjust a setting) and/or by clicking the ring inwards (e.g., to select an adjusted setting or to select an option)),
the interaction comprising an engagement by the user with an application interface associated with the network of two or more network-connected devices on the network-connected device (Karp in [0072] teaches a user-interface component may include a click-and-rotate annular ring component that may enable the user to interact with the component by rotating the ring (e.g., to adjust a setting) and/or by clicking the ring inwards (e.g., to select an adjusted setting or to select an option)).
Regarding claim 10, Karp, as modified above, teaches the method of claim 1.
Karp further teaches
wherein the notification comprises at least one of an audio output or a visual output (Karp in [0079] teaches a first device may, e.g., cause a general audio or visual signal to be presented (e.g., such as sounding of a doorbell) or cause a location-specific audio or visual signal to be presented (e.g., to announce the visitor's presence within a room that a user is occupying).
Regarding claim 13, Karp, as modified above, teaches the method of claim 1.
Karp further teaches
further comprising:
obtaining, prior to the integrating of at least portions of data from the obtained metadata into the selected templated prompt, documentation associated with a network-connected device of the two or more network-connected devices (Karp in [page 363, paragraph 2] teaches using a single JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) document describing the smart-device environment structure, the thermostat, the hazard detector, or any combination thereof).
Regarding claim 14, Karp, as modified above, teaches the method of claim 1.
Karp further teaches
wherein the notification comprises a pop-up notification, a text message, or an email (Karp in [0595] teaches a notification may be a text message, email, voice call, etc.).
Regarding claim 19, Karp, as modified above, teaches the method of claim 1.
Karp, as modified above, teaches the obtained metadata, and functionality described by the language model output.
Karp further teaches
wherein the obtained metadata includes
a device state of a first network-connected device and a device state of a second network-connected device (Karp in [0303] teaches the pairing process includes two basic steps. In one step, the pairing process collects information about the device 502, such as a location (e.g., structure) of the device, a serial number (or other unique identifier) of the device 502, etc. This information may be provided by a user attempting to pair the device 502 (e.g., via a graphical user interface prompt requesting the device-specific information). For example, a pairing request (e.g., a a representational state transfer (REST) message) may be provided to the API 90 from the third- party and/or third-party device 502 and/or the third-party cloud 504. This pairing request may include the device-specific information. The API 90 may transform payload data provided in the pairing request into a format interpretable by the services 191 and may provide the transformed data to the services 191. For example, the API 90 may receive the request in an ISO 8601 format and translate data from the request into an alternative format expected by the services, and in [0304, Fig. 17] teaches a second step, the pairing process determines the device type of the device 502 and ties the device type to the device-specific payload data of the third-party device 706. To do this, the services 191 may retrieve an associated provisioned device type and form a relationship between the device-specific payload data and the associated device type),
and
wherein [the functionality described by the language model output] includes a cross-device automation routine linking the first network-connected device and the second network-connected device (Karp in [0303] teaches the pairing process includes two basic steps. In one step, the pairing process collects information about the device 502, such as a location (e.g., structure) of the device, a serial number (or other unique identifier) of the device 502, etc. This information may be provided by a user attempting to pair the device 502 (e.g., via a graphical user interface prompt requesting the device-specific information). For example, a pairing request (e.g., a REST message) may be provided to the API 90 from the third- party and/or third-party device 502 and/or the third-party cloud 504. This pairing request may include the device-specific information. The API 90 may transform payload data provided in the pairing request into a format interpretable by the services 191 and may provide the transformed data to the services 191. For example, the API 90 may receive the request in an ISO 8601 format and translate data from the request into an alternative format expected by the services).
Regarding claim 20, Karp, as modified above, teaches the method of claim 1.
Karp, as modified above, does not teach, however Rastogi teaches
wherein the one or more text segments comprise one or more tokens (Rastogi in [0026] teaches the prompt may include tokenizing the prompt into tokens, and in [0023] teaches using sequences of tokens, which may be in the form of natural language (e.g., human-like text)).
Rastogi is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of large language models (LLMs). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Karp, as modified above, further in view of Rastogi to allow for using an AI model which is trained to generate sequences of tokens, which may be in the form of natural language. Motivation to do so would allow for a user to orient his or her day without the need to view multiple applications or data sources-resulting in a further increase in productivity (Rastogi [0087]).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karp, in view of Rastogi, in view of Meisner et al. (US Patent Pub. No. 20080144956 A1), hereinafter Meisner.
Regarding claim 6, Karp, as modified above, teaches the method of claim 1.
Karp, as modified above, teaches integrating at least portions of data from the obtained metadata into the selected templated prompt, and integrating at least portions of data into the selected templated prompt, and the list of one or more templated prompts, and selecting a templated prompt from a list of one or more templated prompts.
Karp further teaches
integrating at least portions of data from the obtained metadata into the selected templated prompt comprises
integrating at least portions of data into the [feature discovery prompt] that are relevant to features associated with
a network-connected device that a user has recently interacted with (Karp in [0544] teaches the user may control the thermostat to change the temperature as desired in the living room, and the wireless sensors may provide data to the thermostat and/or cloud server to determine the ideal ambient temperature for the user in each room at each time of day and night to provide comfort and/or energy efficiency as desired),
a network-connected device that was recently activated (Karp in [0459] teaches the user may use the app on their mobile device to turn the oven on and off),
or
a network-connected device that was recently added to the network of two or more network-connected devices (Karp in [0225] teaches each device added gets a new device id).
Karp, as modified above, does not teach, however Meisner teaches
wherein [the list of one or more templated prompts] comprise
a feature discovery prompt (Meisner in [0002] teaches a prompt where users are notified when they might benefit from the operational feature, and they can be further led to discover a feature with which they may have previously been unfamiliar),
and wherein:
selecting the templated prompt from [the list of one or more templated prompts] comprises
selecting the feature discovery prompt (Meisner in [0002] teaches selecting the prompt relating to feature discovery).
Meisner is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of generating and using prompts. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Karp, as modified above, further in view of Meisner to allow for using a prompt to discover new features. Motivation to do so would allow for users to be notified when they might benefit from correction, and they can be further led to discover a feature with which they may have previously been unfamiliar (Meisner [Abstract]).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karp, in view of Rastogi, in view of Gorny (US Patent Pub. No. 20210328946 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Karp, as modified above, teaches the method of claim 1.
Karp, as modified above, teaches integrating at least portions of data from the obtained metadata into the selected templated prompt, and integrating at least portions of data into the selected templated prompt, and the list of one or more templated prompts, and selecting a templated prompt from a list of one or more templated prompts.
Karp further teaches
integrating at least portions of data from the obtained metadata into the selected templated prompt comprises
integrating at least portions of data into the [automation creation prompt] that are relevant to automation routines available with
a network-connected device that a user has recently interacted with (Karp in [0544] teaches the user may control the thermostat to change the temperature as desired in the living room, and the wireless sensors may provide data to the thermostat and/or cloud server to determine the ideal ambient temperature for the user in each room at each time of day and night to provide comfort and/or energy efficiency as desired),
a network-connected device that was recently activated (Karp in [0459] teaches the user may use the app on their mobile device to turn the oven on and off),
or
a network-connected device that was recently added to the network of two or more network-connected devices (Karp in [0225] teaches each device added gets a new device id).
Karp, as modified above, does not teach, however Gorny teaches
wherein [the list of one or more templated prompts] comprise
an automation creation prompt (Gorny in [0076] teaches a task automation prompt to create a new template),
and wherein:
selecting the templated prompt from [the list of one or more templated prompts] comprises
selecting the automation creation prompt (Gorny in [0076] teaches the configuration module may respond to input from one or more input devices and select “yes” on task automation prompt, thereby prompting communication planning module to generate a new template).
Gorny is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of generating and using prompts. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Karp, as modified above, further in view of Gorny to allow for using a task automation prompt to create a new template. Motivation to do so would allow for determining customer service representative scores, solution scores, customer service representative skill scores, customer satisfaction scores for providing branding data about a customer service ticket to a customer service representative, and/or communication sentiment scores (Gorny [0059]).
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karp, in view of Rastogi, in view of Igarashi et al. (US Patent No. 8484190 B1), hereinafter Igarashi.
Regarding claim 8, Karp, as modified above, teaches the method of claim 1.
Karp, as modified above, teaches integrating at least portions of data from the obtained metadata into the selected templated prompt, and integrating at least portions of data into the selected templated prompt, and the list of one or more templated prompts, and selecting a templated prompt from a list of one or more templated prompts.
Karp, as modified above, does not teach, however Igarashi teaches
wherein the list of one or more templated prompts comprise
a suggestion prompt (Igarashi in [col 9 ln 48-57] teaches using a suggestion prompt),
and wherein:
selecting the templated prompt from the list of one or more templated prompts comprises
selecting the suggestion prompt (Igarashi in [col 9 ln 48-57] teaches triggering a suggestion prompt);
and
integrating at least portions of data from the obtained metadata into the selected templated prompt comprises
integrating at least portions of data into the suggestion prompt that are
in response to a query provided by a user (Igarashi in [col 9 ln 48-57] teaches using a suggestion prompt to clarify the user query)
and
relevant to usage habits or activities of the user as indicated by the obtained metadata (Igarashi in [col 6 ln 56 – col 7 ln 6] teaches using the triggered suggestion prompt may be based on user habits).
Igarashi is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of generating and using prompts. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Karp, as modified above, further in view of Igarashi to allow for using a suggestion prompt to create a suggestion. Motivation to do so would allow for identifying trigger queries for prompting the user for additional information that is missing from the trigger query in order to provide more relevant results than a general query (Igarashi [col 2 ln 23-34]).
Regarding claim 9, Karp, as modified above, teaches the method of claim 8.
Karp further teaches
wherein the query provided by the user comprises a question that seeks a suggestion for information associated with at least one network-connected device of the two or more network-connected devices (Karp in [0441] teaches processing user questions, such as "what's the current temperature in the bedroom?", "what's the current temperature of the thermostat?").
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karp, in view of Rastogi, in view of Puppala et al. (US Patent Pub. No. 20190058967 A1), hereinafter Puppala.
Regarding claim 11, Karp, as modified above, teaches the method of claim 1.
Karp, as modified above, teaches generating of the language model output.
Karp, as modified above, does not teach, however Puppala teaches
further comprising:
determining, based on the obtained metadata and prior to providing the notification to the user, a time delay between the [generating of the language model output] and the providing of the notification (Puppala in [0066] teaches using notification delay time that relatively short, but greater than 0 minutes (e.g., between 15 and 30 minutes), a short but nonzero notification delay time in a restaurant smart zone prevents the mobile device from providing unnecessary notifications that a tracking device may have been lost when the user has simply left the table for a short period of time);
and
delaying, in response to the [generating of the language model output], the providing of the notification in accordance with the determined time delay (Puppala in [0066] teaches using notification delay time that relatively short, but greater than 0 minutes (e.g., between 15 and 30 minutes), a short but nonzero notification delay time in a restaurant smart zone prevents the mobile device from providing unnecessary notifications that a tracking device may have been lost when the user has simply left the table for a short period of time).
Puppala is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of delaying sending of notifications. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Karp, as modified above, further in view of Puppala to allow for using a notification delay time that relatively short. Motivation to do so would allow for a device to be configured to operate in a mode selected based on a presence of the device within a safe zone, a smart zone, a high-risk zone, a home area, or a travel area (Puppala [Abstract]).
Regarding claim 12, Karp, as modified above, teaches the method of claim 11.
Karp, as modified above, does not teach, however Puppala teaches
wherein the determining of the time delay is based on at least one of
a location of the user (Puppala in [0066] teaches using notification delay time that relatively short, but greater than 0 minutes (e.g., between 15 and 30 minutes), a short but nonzero notification delay time in a restaurant smart zone prevents the mobile device from providing unnecessary notifications that a tracking device may have been lost when the user has simply left the table for a short period of time),
an activity of the user (Puppala in [0066] teaches using notification delay time that relatively short, but greater than 0 minutes (e.g., between 15 and 30 minutes), a short but nonzero notification delay time in a restaurant smart zone prevents the mobile device from providing unnecessary notifications that a tracking device may have been lost when the user has simply left the table for a short period of time),
a number of notifications on the at least one network-connected device,
an operating state of the at least one network-connected device,
or
a power level of the at least one network-connected device.
Puppala is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of delaying sending of notifications. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Karp, as modified above, further in view of Puppala to allow for using a notification delay time that relatively short. Motivation to do so would allow for a device to be configured to operate in a mode selected based on a presence of the device within a safe zone, a smart zone, a high-risk zone, a home area, or a travel area (Puppala [Abstract]).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karp, in view of Rastogi, in view of Osborn et al. (US Patent Pub. No. 20230072423 A1), hereinafter Osborn.
Regarding claim 15, Karp, as modified above, teaches the method of claim 1.
Karp, as modified above, teaches the text segments.
Karp, as modified above, does not teach, however Osborn teaches
wherein the one or more [text segments] comprise letters (Osborn in [1873] teaches using tokens which are letters),
and
the letters are arranged within at least one sentence fragment in the selected templated prompt (Osborn in [1604] teaches using text prompts which are phrases or sentences).
Osborn is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of using prompts that contain tokens. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Karp, as modified above, further in view of Osborn to allow for using tokens which are letters. Motivation to do so would allow for capture and detection of subtle, small, or fast movements and/or variations in pressure on an object (e.g., varying amounts of force exerted through a stylus, writing instrument, or finger being pressed against a surface) that can be important for resolving, e.g., text input (Osborn [0256]).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karp, in view of Rastogi, in view of Duffy et al. (US Patent Pub. No. 20220070289 A1), hereinafter Duffy.
Regarding claim 16, Karp, as modified above, teaches the method of claim 1.
Karp, as modified above, teaches the obtained metadata.
Karp further teaches
wherein the obtained metadata includes
interaction history data indicating a frequency of user interaction with the at least one network-connected device (Karp in [0291] teaches providing a historical account of particular data values of a third-party sensor, for example, re -using the motion detection example discussed above, the time variant data provision may provide a historical account of motion detected by the third-party sensor (e.g., motion detected at 5:00, no motion detected at 6:00, etc.)).
Karp, as modified above, does not teach, however Osborn teaches
wherein the templated prompt is selected based on the frequency being below a threshold (Duffy in [0102] teaches the rendering of the prompt is responsive to a historic frequency of interaction between the user and the external, real object being below a threshold).
Duffy is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of rendering messages to users. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Karp, as modified above, further in view of Duffy to allow for rendering of the prompt responsive to a historic frequency of interaction between the user and the external, real object being below a threshold. Motivation to do so would allow for providing a person with feelings of comfort (Duffy [0067]).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karp, in view of Rastogi, in view of Brewer et al. (US Patent Pub. No. 20210006624 A1), hereinafter Brewer.
Regarding claim 17, Karp, as modified above, teaches the method of claim 1.
Karp, as modified above, does not teach, however Brewer teaches
wherein the language model output describing the functionality includes a step-by-step instruction for enabling a disabled capability of the at least one network-connected device (Brewer in [0008] teaches the step of transmitting instructions to activate a function on the client device may comprise: transmitting instructions to prompt a user of the client device to activate Bluetooth functionality on the client device).
Brewer is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of activating functionality on a client device when the client device is determined by a sensor to be in a particular environment. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Karp, as modified above, further in view of Brewer to allow for transmitting instructions to prompt a user of the client device to activate Bluetooth functionality on the client device. Motivation to do so would allow for enablement of a customer to be provided with personalized service by staff or via an app on the customer's client device (e.g. telling them about relevant offers or new items that may be of interest, and where they are located in the shop) (Brewer [0077]).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karp, in view of Rastogi, in view of Hiller (US Patent Pub. No. 20190116087 A1).
Regarding claim 18, Karp, as modified above, teaches the method of claim 1.
Karp, as modified above, does not teach, however Hiller teaches
wherein the notification includes a dynamic user interface element that, when selected, automatically configures a setting of the at least one network-connected device to implement the functionality (Hiller in [0069] teaches provide a prompt requesting the user's confirmation before sending the configuration information, and automatically provide the configuration information to the IoT device).
Hiller is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of configuring devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Karp, as modified above, further in view of Hiller to allow for automatically providing configuration information to an IoT device. Motivation to do so would allow for a user access device to find and/or connect to an IoT device, and then transmit the configuration information to the IoT device without user assistance (e.g., beyond a network selection in a phone settings application) (Hiller [0069]).
Conclusion
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 PAUL J. MUELLER whose telephone number is (571)272-1875. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00am-5:00pm (Eastern).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Daniel C. Washburn can be reached at 571-272-5551. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
PAUL MUELLER
Examiner
Art Unit 2657
/PAUL J. MUELLER/Examiner, Art Unit 2657
/DANIEL C WASHBURN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2657