DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the following communication: The claims filed on 03/30/2026. This action is made final.
Claims 1-8, 10-15, 17-23, 25-29 are pending in the case. Claims 1, 28, and 29 are independent claims.
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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Kingdom of Denmark on 08/24/2020. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the DKPA202070547 and DKPA202070548 applications as required by 37 CFR 1.55. It is noted that the notices of unsuccessful retrieval of the document were mailed out on 04/10/2024.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-8, 10-15, 17-23, 25-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
With respect to independent claims 1, 28, and 29, the claims recite the limitations “after receiving the natural language input, selecting, based on context information associated with the electronic device and based on determining that the electronic device is in a locked state or a determination that the electronic device is not in the locked state, a first response mode of the digital assistant from a plurality of digital assistant response modes, wherein the context information includes whether the electronic device is in the locked state.” In this case, the selection is executed when two conditions are met. The first condition is based on the context information associated with the electronic device and even though the context information includes whether the electronic device is in the locked state, the second condition is still be assessed based on “determining that the electronic device is in a locked state or a determination that the electronic device is not in the locked state” the claim do not recite the outcome of the determining; therefore, this determining feature become redundant and confusing. In the case of the method claim 29, the selection is never executed since the second condition does not yield any outcome.
The dependent claims 2-8, 10-15, 17-23, 25-27 are rejected as incorporating the deficiencies of the claim upon which they depend.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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, 28, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kudurshian et al. (US 2017/0358305 A1; hereinafter as Kudurshian) in view of Wolverton et al. (US 2014/0136187 A1; hereafter Wolverton) further in view of Van Os et al. (US 10284812 B1; hereinafter Van Os_II).
As to claim 1, Kudurshian discloses:
An electronic device (see Fig. 2A and ¶ 0049), comprising:
a display (see Fig. 2A and ¶ 0055);
one or more processors (see Fig. 2A and ¶ 0061);
a memory (see Fig. 2A and ¶ 0059); and
one or more programs, wherein the one or more programs are stored in the memory and configured to be executed by the one or more processors (see Fig. 2A and ¶ 0060), the one or more programs including instructions for:
receiving a natural language input (see Fig. 8A and ¶ 0255; the digital assistant is instantiated in response to receiving a pre-determined phrase; For example, the digital assistant is invoked in response to receiving a phrase such as “Hey, Assistant,” “Wake up, Assistant,” “Listen up, Assistant,” “OK, Assistant,” or the like. ¶ 0256; speech inputs);
initiating a digital assistant (see Fig. 8A and ¶ 0260; In response to the speech input, the user device instantiates the digital assistant represented by affordance 840 or 841 such that the digital assistant is actively monitoring subsequent speech inputs);
in accordance with initiating the digital assistant, obtaining a response package responsive to the natural language input (see ¶ 0257; the digital assistant identifies context information associated with the user device. ¶ 0092; the digital assistant can also use the contextual information to determine how to prepare and deliver outputs to the user. Contextual information can be referred to as context data. ¶ 0045-0046; generating output responses to the user in an audible (e.g., speech) and/or visual form; In addition to providing verbal responses and taking programmed actions, the digital assistant can also provide responses in other visual or audio forms, e.g., as text, alerts, music, videos, animations, etc).
Kudurshian does not appear to teach, but Wolverton is relied upon for teaching the limitations:
after receiving the natural language input, selecting, based on context information associated with the electronic device, a first response mode of the digital assistant from a plurality of digital assistant response modes (¶ 0019; a vehicle personal assistant to receive human-generated conversational spoken natural language input. ¶ 0020; The vehicle personal assistant may determine whether to search another data source based on the current vehicle-related context. ¶ 0021, 0073, 0074, 0114; The vehicle personal assistant may select a presentation mode from a plurality of possible presentation modes based on the current vehicle-related context and present the reply using the selected presentation mode. The plurality of possible presentation modes may include machine-generated conversational spoken natural language, text, recorded audio, recorded video, and/or digital images); and
in response to selecting the first response mode, presenting, by the digital assistant, the response package according to the first response mode (¶ 0021, 0122; The vehicle personal assistant may select a presentation mode from a plurality of possible presentation modes based on the current vehicle-related context and present the reply using the selected presentation mode).
Both references, each is directed to visual assistant user interface; therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the digital assistant user interface disclosed in Kudurshian to include the specific feature of selecting a response mode based on context information as taught by Wolverton such that the user can interact with the digital assistant to get the best response in an appropriate format as claimed. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination because of the overlapping subject matter (i.e., digital assistant), and the advantage described in Wolverton that allows the user to view the response in the best format that suitable to the device context; thus, enhance user experience with the user interface (Wolverton: see ¶ 0021).
Kudushian and Wolverton do not appear to teach the selection is based on context information associated with the electronic device, wherein the context information includes whether the electronic device is in the locked state AND based on determining that the electronic device is in a locked state or a determination that the electronic device is not in the locked state. However, selection of an output mode based on context information associated with the electronic device, wherein the context information includes whether the electronic device is in the locked state and based on determining that the electronic device is in a locked state or a determination that the electronic device is not in the locked state is taught by Van OS_II (Van Os_II: see Col. 56, lines 6-49, Col. 47, lines 36-67; In some embodiments, a relevant context of the device is whether the device is in a locked or unlocked state. In some embodiments, when the device is locked, an alert of a first type (e.g., an audio or haptic output) is issued; when the device is unlocked (e.g., when a user is actively operating/interacting with the device), an alert is not issued (e.g., suppressed). See Col. 48, 26-39; in some embodiments, the determination to alert a user is based on a disturbance criterion (e.g., whether the device is locked or unlocked). In some embodiments, in accordance with device 600 being locked (e.g., as illustrated in FIG. 6Y), device outputs an alert (e.g., haptic output 678); and in accordance with device 600 being unlocked (e.g., as illustrated in FIG. 6Z), device 600 displays a notification (e.g., banner notification 676 and refrains from providing the alert (e.g., no haptic output)).
The references, each is directed to visual assistant user interface; therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the digital assistant user interface with a response affordance disclosed in Kudurshian/Wolverton/VAN OS_II to include the specific feature of determine the output format based on context data that includes whether the device is in a locked state or not as taught by Van Os_II such that the user can interact with the digital assistant to get an appropriate response as claimed. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination because of the overlapping subject matter (i.e., digital assistant), and the advantage described in Van Os_II that allows the user to receive the feedback even when the device is in a locked state; thus, enhance user experience with the mobile device (Van Os_II: see Col. 56, lines 6-49).
As to claim 28, claim 28 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing one or more programs, the one or more programs comprising instructions, which when executed by one or more processors of an electronic device with a display, cause the electronic device to perform similar features as recited in independent claim 1; therefore, is rejected under similar rationale. (Kudurshian: see Fig. 2A and ¶ 0059-0060).
As to claim 29, claim 29 is directed to method for operating a digital assistant, the method comprising steps for performing similar features as claimed in claim 1; therefore, is rejected under similar rationale. (Kudurshian: see ¶ 0008-0009). The examiner notes the contingent limitations in the method claims “determining that …” and “wherein the context information includes whether the electronic device is in the locked state”; the broadest reasonable interpretation does not include the selection step in case the determination yields negative result.
Claims 2-5, 13, 17, 20-21, 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kudurshian et al. (US 2017/0358305 A1; hereinafter as Kudurshian) in view of Wolverton et al. (US 2014/0136187 A1; hereafter Wolverton) and Van Os et al. (US 10284812 B1; hereinafter Van Os_II) further in view of VAN OS et al. (US 2015/0382047 A1; hereinafter VAN OS).
As to claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Kudurshian/Wolverton/Van OS_II further teach wherein the response package includes: first text associated with a digital assistant response affordance (see Fig. 8C and ¶ 0265; the text in 822); and second text associated with the digital assistant response affordance (see Fig. 8B and ¶ 00264; text corresponding to speech input 854).
Additionally, VAN OS is relied upon for teaching the limitations of claim 2. Specifically, VAN OS teaches a virtual assistant user interface (see Fig. 4E, 5 and ¶ 0099) comprising response package includes: first text associated with a digital assistant response affordance (see Fig. 5-6B and ¶ 0102, 0106; selection of text link 514 can provide additional detailed information about the media content or other virtual assistant query result); and second text associated with the digital assistant response affordance (see Fig. 5 and ¶ 0101-0102; selectable text links 514).
The references, each is directed to visual assistant user interface; therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the digital assistant user interface with text response affordance disclosed in Kudurshian/Wolverton/Van OS_II to include the specific feature of expanding the response affordance to display a detailed response as taught by VAN OS such that the user can interact with the digital assistant to get a more detailed response as claimed. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination because of the overlapping subject matter (i.e., digital assistant), and the advantage described in VAN OS that allows the user to get a relevant output from the virtual assistant; thus, enhance user experience with the virtual assistant user interface (VAN OS: see ¶ 0004-0005).
As to claim 3, the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated. Kudurshian/Wolverton/Van OS_II /VAN OS further teach wherein the second text has fewer words than the first text (VAN OS: see Fig. 5-6B and ¶ 0101-0102, 0106). Combining Kudurshian/Wolverton/VAN OS would meet the claimed limitations for the same reasons as set forth in claim 2.
As to claim 4, the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated. Kudurshian/Wolverton/Van OS_II /VAN OS further teach: wherein selecting the first response mode includes determining whether to: display the second text without providing audio output representing the second text; or provide the audio output representing the second text without displaying the second text (Wolverton: ¶ 0021, 0073, 0074, 0114; The vehicle personal assistant may select a presentation mode from a plurality of possible presentation modes based on the current vehicle-related context and present the reply using the selected presentation mode. The plurality of possible presentation modes may include machine-generated conversational spoken natural language [~audio output], text [~visual output], recorded audio, recorded video, and/or digital images). Combining Kudurshian/Wolverton/Van OS_II /VAN OS would meet the claimed limitations for the same reasons as set forth in claim 1.
As to claim 5, the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated. Kudurshian/Wolverton/Van OS_II /VAN OS further teach: wherein selecting the first response mode includes determining whether to provide audio output representing the first text (Wolverton: ¶ 0021, 0073, 0074, 0114; The vehicle personal assistant may select a presentation mode from a plurality of possible presentation modes based on the current vehicle-related context and present the reply using the selected presentation mode. The plurality of possible presentation modes may include machine-generated conversational spoken natural language [~audio output representing the first text]). Combining Kudurshian/Wolverton/Van OS_II /VAN OS would meet the claimed limitations for the same reasons as set forth in claim 1.
As to claim 13, the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated. Kudurshian/Wolverton/Van OS_II /VAN OS further teach: wherein: the first response mode is a mixed response mode; and presenting, by the digital assistant, the response package according to the first response mode includes displaying the digital assistant response affordance and providing second audio output representing the second text without displaying the second text (Kudurshian: ¶ 0045-0046; generating output responses to the user in an audible (e.g., speech) and/or visual form; In addition to providing verbal responses and taking programmed actions, the digital assistant can also provide responses in other visual or audio forms, e.g., as text, alerts, music, videos, animations, etc).
As to claim 20, the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated. Kudurshian/Wolverton/Van OS_II /VAN OS further teach: wherein: the first response mode is a voice response mode; and presenting, by the digital assistant, the response package according to the first response mode includes providing audio output representing the first text (Kudurshian: ¶ 0045-0046; generating output responses to the user in an audible (e.g., speech) and/or visual form; In addition to providing verbal responses and taking programmed actions, the digital assistant can also provide responses in other visual or audio forms, e.g., as text, alerts, music, videos, animations, etc).
As to claim 21, the rejection of claim 20 is incorporated. Kudurshian/Wolverton/Van OS_II /VAN OS further teach: wherein: the context information includes a determination that the electronic device is in a vehicle; and selecting the first response mode is based on the determination that the electronic device is in the vehicle (Wolverton: ¶ 0055; certain inputs 102 may have a different meaning depending on whether the vehicle 104 is turned on or off, whether the user is situated in the driver's seat or a passenger seat, whether the user is inside the vehicle, standing outside the vehicle, or simply accessing the vehicle personal assistant 112 from a computer located inside a home or office, or even whether the user is driving the vehicle 104 at relatively high speed on a freeway as opposed to being stuck in traffic or on a country road. For instance, if the vehicle personal assistant 112 detects that it is connected to the vehicle 104 and the vehicle 104 is powered on, the reasoner 136 can obtain specific information about the vehicle 104 (e.g., the particular make, model, and options that are associated with the vehicle's VIN or Vehicle Identification Number). Such information can be obtained from the vehicle manufacturer and stored in a vehicle-specific configuration 122 portion of the vehicle context model 116. ¶ 0021, 0073, 0074, 0114; The vehicle personal assistant may select a presentation mode from a plurality of possible presentation modes based on the current vehicle-related context and present the reply using the selected presentation mode. The plurality of possible presentation modes may include machine-generated conversational spoken natural language, text, recorded audio, recorded video, and/or digital images). Combining Kudurshian/Wolverton/Van OS_II /VAN OS would meet the claimed limitations for the same reasons as set forth in claim 1.
As to claims 17 and 25, the rejection of claim 13 (20) is incorporated. Kudurshian/Wolverton/Van OS_II /VAN OS further teach: wherein: the context information includes whether a display of the electronic device was displaying before initiating the digital assistant; and selecting the first response mode is based on determining that the display was displaying before initiating the digital assistant (Van Os_II: see Col. 56, lines 6-49, Col. 47, lines 36-67; In some embodiments, a relevant context of the device is whether the device is in a locked or unlocked state. In some embodiments, when the device is locked, an alert of a first type (e.g., an audio or haptic output) is issued; when the device is unlocked (e.g., when a user is actively operating/interacting with the device), an alert is not issued (e.g., suppressed) [when the device is in a locked state, the display was not displaying before initiating the assistant]). Combining Kudurshian/Wolverton/Van OS_II /VAN OS would meet the claimed limitations for the same reasons as set forth in claim 1.
Claims 6-8, 10, 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kudurshian et al. (US 2017/0358305 A1; hereinafter as Kudurshian) in view of Wolverton et al. (US 2014/0136187 A1; hereafter Wolverton) and Van Os et al. (US 10284812 B1; hereinafter Van Os_II) further in view of VAN OS et al. (US 2015/0382047 A1; hereinafter VAN OS) and Cohen et al. (US 2020/0310742 A1; hereinafter Cohen).
As to claim 6, the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated Kudurshian/Wolverton/Van OS_II /VAN OS do not expressly teach, but Cohen is relied upon for teaching the limitations of claim 6:
wherein: the first response mode is a silent response mode (Cohen: see ¶ 0017; whispering or muted volume level); and
presenting, by the digital assistant, the response package according to the first response mode includes: displaying the digital assistant response affordance; and displaying the second text without providing second audio output representing the second text (Cohen: see ¶ 0017; the output volume level maybe a muted volume level, and other output modalities may be utilized instead, such as text output instead of audio output. ¶ 0091; the determined output volume level may be a mute level, indicating that no audio output should be provided. Additionally or alternatively, other output modalities may be utilized together with or instead of audio modality, such as text-based output, graphical output, haptic output, or the like. In some exemplary embodiments, Output Volume Level Determinator of FIG. 2 may be utilized to determine the output volume level based on the interaction context).
The references, each is directed to visual assistant user interface; therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the digital assistant user interface with a response affordance disclosed in Kudurshian/Wolverton/Van OS_II /VAN OS to include the specific feature of determine the output format based on context as taught by Cohen such that the user can interact with the digital assistant to get a more detailed response as claimed. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination because of the overlapping subject matter (i.e., digital assistant), and the advantage described in Cohen that allows the user to receive the response in the suitable format that fits his/her context so that it does not disturb other people and/or protect the user’s privacy (Cohen: see ¶ 0017).
As to claim 7, the rejection of claim 6 is incorporated. Kudurshian/Wolverton/Van OS_II /VAN OS/Cohen further teach: wherein: the context information includes a digital assistant voice feedback setting; and selecting the first response mode is based on determining that the digital assistant voice feedback setting indicates to not provide voice feedback (Cohen: see ¶ 0019; the feedback of the user. ¶ 0025, 0038, 0070; the determination of the output volume level may improve over time, using user feedback). Combining Kudurshian/Wolverton/Van OS_II /VAN OS/Cohen would meet the claimed limitations for the same reasons as set forth in claim 6.
As to claim 8, the rejection of claim 6 is incorporated. Kudurshian/Wolverton/Van OS_II /VAN OS/Cohen further teach: wherein: the context information includes a detection of physical contact of the electronic device to initiate the digital assistant (Kudurshian: see ¶ 0090; the digital assistant client module 229 can be capable of accepting voice input (e.g., speech input), text input, touch input, and/or gestural input through various user interfaces (e.g., microphone 213, accelerometer(s) 268, touch-sensitive display system 212, optical sensor(s) 264, other input control devices 216, etc.) of portable multifunction device 200); and selecting the first response mode is based on the detection of the physical contact (Kudurshian: see ¶ 0045-0046; provide responses in visual or audio forms. Wolverton: ¶ 0021, 0073, 0074, 0114; The vehicle personal assistant may select a presentation mode from a plurality of possible presentation modes based on the current vehicle-related context and present the reply using the selected presentation mode. The plurality of possible presentation modes may include machine-generated conversational spoken natural language, text, recorded audio, recorded video, and/or digital images). Combining Kudurshian/Wolverton/Van OS_II /VAN OS/Cohen would meet the claimed limitations for the same reasons as set forth in claim 1.
As to claim 10, the rejection of claim 6 is incorporated. Kudurshian/Wolverton/Van OS_II /VAN OS/Cohen further teach: wherein: the context information includes whether a display of the electronic device was displaying before initiating the digital assistant; and selecting the first response mode is based on determining that the display was displaying before initiating the digital assistant (Van Os_II: see Col. 56, lines 6-49, Col. 47, lines 36-67; In some embodiments, a relevant context of the device is whether the device is in a locked or unlocked state. In some embodiments, when the device is locked, an alert of a first type (e.g., an audio or haptic output) is issued; when the device is unlocked (e.g., when a user is actively operating/interacting with the device), an alert is not issued (e.g., suppressed) [when the device is in a locked state, the display was not displaying before initiating the assistant]). Combining Kudurshian/Wolverton/VAN OS_II/VAN OS/Cohen would meet the claimed limitations for the same reasons as set forth in claim 6.
As to claim 14, the rejection of claim 13 is incorporated. Kudurshian/Wolverton/Van OS_II /VAN OS/Cohen further teach: wherein: the context information includes a digital assistant voice feedback setting; and selecting the first response mode is based on determining that the digital assistant voice feedback setting indicates to provide voice feedback (Cohen: see ¶ 0019; the feedback of the user. ¶ 0025, 0038, 0070; the determination of the output volume level may improve over time, using user feedback). Combining Kudurshian/Wolverton/Van OS_II /VAN OS/Cohen would meet the claimed limitations for the same reasons as set forth in claim 6.
As to claim 15, the rejection of claim 13 is incorporated. Kudurshian/Wolverton/Van OS_II /VAN OS/Cohen further teach: wherein: the context information includes a detection of physical contact of the electronic device to initiate the digital assistant; (Kudurshian: see ¶ 0090; the digital assistant client module 229 can be capable of accepting voice input (e.g., speech input), text input, touch input, and/or gestural input through various user interfaces (e.g., microphone 213, accelerometer(s) 268, touch-sensitive display system 212, optical sensor(s) 264, other input control devices 216, etc.) of portable multifunction device 200); and selecting the first response mode is based on the detection of the physical contact (Kudurshian: see ¶ 0045-0046; provide responses in visual or audio forms. Wolverton: ¶ 0021, 0073, 0074, 0114; The vehicle personal assistant may select a presentation mode from a plurality of possible presentation modes based on the current vehicle-related context and present the reply using the selected presentation mode. The plurality of possible presentation modes may include machine-generated conversational spoken natural language, text, recorded audio, recorded video, and/or digital images). Combining Kudurshian/Wolverton/VAN OS_II/VAN OS/Cohen would meet the claimed limitations for the same reasons as set forth in claim 1.
Claims 4-6, 8, 11, 12, 15, 18-19, 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kudurshian et al. (US 2017/0358305 A1; hereinafter as Kudurshian) in view of Wolverton et al. (US 2014/0136187 A1; hereafter Wolverton) in view of Van Os et al. (US 10284812 B1; hereinafter Van Os_II) further in view of VAN OS et al. (US 2015/0382047 A1; hereinafter VAN OS) and Min et al. (US 2018/0286392 A1; hereinafter Min).
As to claim 4, the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated. Min is additionally relied upon for teaching the limitations of claim 4. Specifically, Min teaches wherein selecting the first response mode includes determining whether to: display the second text without providing audio output representing the second text (see Figs. 3, 4, 6 and ¶ 0055-0056; visual output mode; i.e., the gesture input mode, the user may be able to select “gesture/display only”); or provide the audio output representing the second text without displaying the second text (Min: see Figs. 3, 4, 6 and ¶ 0049; responses to subsequently received voice commands/queries are presented audibly, e.g., on the speaker(s) 302 shown in FIG. 3).
The references, each is directed to visual assistant user interface; therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the digital assistant user interface with text response affordance disclosed in Kudurshian/Wolverton/Van OS_II /VAN OS to include the specific feature of presenting the responses in a selected format as taught by Min such that the user view the response in a desired format as claimed. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination because of the overlapping subject matter (i.e., digital assistant), and the advantage described in Min that makes it easier for the user to interact with the virtual assistance (Min: see ¶ 0002).
As to claim 5, the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated. Kudurshian/Wolverton/Van OS_II /VAN OS//Min further teach: wherein selecting the first response mode includes determining whether to provide audio output representing the first text (Min: see Figs. 3, 4, 6 and ¶ 0049, 0055-0056). Combining Kudurshian/Wolverton/VAN OS_II/VAN OS/Min would meet the claimed limitations for the same reasons as set forth in claim 4.
As to claim 6, the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated. Claim 6 is additionally rejected based on the combination of Kudurshian/Wolverton/Van OS_II /VAN OS//Min where it teaches:
wherein: the first response mode is a silent response mode (Min: see Figs. 3, 4, 6, 8 and ¶ 0055-0056; In the gesture input mode, for example, the user may be able to select “gesture/display only” as one selection; visual output mode [~silent response mode]); and
presenting, by the digital assistant, the response package according to the first response mode includes: displaying the digital assistant response affordance; and displaying the second text without providing second audio output representing the second text (Min: see ¶ 0055-0056; The user may instead decide to select visual output mode, in which case responses to gestures are presented visually, such as on any of the displays). Combining Kudurshian/Wolverton/VAN OS_II/VAN OS/Min would meet the claimed limitations for the same reasons as set forth in claim 4.
As to claim 8, the rejection of claim 6 is incorporated. Claim 8 is additionally rejected based on the combination of Kudurshian/Wolverton/Van OS_II /VAN OS//Min where it teaches: wherein: the context information includes a detection of physical contact of the electronic device to initiate the digital assistant (Min: see Fig. 8 and ¶ 0069; initiate gesture input mode with button includes touch 808 of a button); and selecting the first response mode is based on the detection of the physical contact (Min: see Fig. 8 and ¶ 0069, 0059-0060; initiate gesture input mode). Combining Kudurshian/Wolverton/VAN OS_II/VAN OS/Min would meet the claimed limitations for the same reasons as set forth in claim 4.
As to claims 11 and 18, the rejection of claim 6 (13) is incorporated. Kudurshian/Wolverton/Van OS_II /VAN OS//Min further teach: wherein: the context information includes a detection of a touch performed on the electronic device within a predetermined duration before selecting the first response mode; and selecting the first response mode is based on the detection of the touch (Min: see Fig. 8 and ¶ 0069, 0059-0060; initiate gesture input mode with button includes touch 808 of a button). Combining Kudurshian/Wolverton/VAN OS_II/VAN OS/Min would meet the claimed limitations for the same reasons as set forth in claim 4.
As to claims 12 and 19, the rejection of claim 6 (13) is incorporated. Kudurshian/Wolverton/Van OS_II /VAN OS//Min further teach: wherein: wherein: the context information includes a detection of a predetermined gesture of the electronic device within a second predetermined duration before selecting the first response mode; and selecting the first response mode is based on the detection of the predetermined gesture (Min: see Fig. 8 and ¶ 0008, 0069, 0059-0060; initiate gesture input mode with detected gesture). Combining Kudurshian/Wolverton/VAN OS_II/VAN OS/Min would meet the claimed limitations for the same reasons as set forth in claim 4.
As to claim 15, the rejection of claim 13 is incorporated. Claim 15 is additionally rejected based on the combination of Kudurshian/Wolverton/Van OS_II /VAN OS//Min where it teaches: wherein: the context information includes a detection of physical contact of the electronic device to initiate the digital assistant (Min: see Fig. 8 and ¶ 0069; initiate gesture input mode with button includes touch 808 of a button); and selecting the first response mode is based on the detection of the physical contact (Min: see Fig. 8 and ¶ 0069, 0059-0060; initiate gesture input mode). Combining Kudurshian/Wolverton/VAN OS_II/VAN OS/Min would meet the claimed limitations for the same reasons as set forth in claim 4.
As to claim 23, the rejection of claim 20 is incorporated. Kudurshian/Wolverton/Van OS_II /VAN OS//Min further teach where it teaches: wherein: the context information includes a detection of a voice input to initiate the digital assistant; and selecting the first response mode is based on the detection of the voice input (Min: see Figs. 3, 4, 6 and ¶ 0048-0049, 0052; responses to subsequently received voice commands/queries are presented audibly, e.g., on the speaker(s) 302 shown in FIG. 3); and selecting the first response mode is based on the detection of the physical contact (Min: see Figs. 3, 4, 6 and ¶ 0048-0049, 0052; audio output). Combining Kudurshian/Wolverton/VAN OS_II/VAN OS/Min would meet the claimed limitations for the same reasons as set forth in claim 4.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kudurshian et al. (US 2017/0358305 A1; hereinafter as Kudurshian) in view of Wolverton et al. (US 2014/0136187 A1; hereafter Wolverton) in view of Van Os et al. (US 10284812 B1; hereinafter Van Os_II) further in view of VAN OS et al. (US 2015/0382047 A1; hereinafter VAN OS) and Rakshit et al. (US 2020/0098358 A1; hereinafter Rakshit).
As to claim 22, the rejection of claim 20 is incorporated. Kudurshian/Wolverton/VAN OS_II/VAN OS do not appear to teach, but Rakshit is relied upon for teaching the limitations of claim 22.
wherein: the context information includes a determination that the electronic device is coupled to an external audio output device; and selecting the first response mode is based on the determination that the electronic device is coupled to the external audio output device (¶ 0075, 0015; the response sensitivity determination module 310 determines, based on the audio output settings of the assistant device 210, whether the response will be played over internal speakers, through headphones, through external wireless/network speakers in a public environment or private environment (e.g., a car), etc.. ¶ 0066; output the response by text or audio only)
The references, each is directed to visual assistant user interface; therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the digital assistant user interface with text response affordance disclosed in Kudurshian/Wolverton/VAN OS_II/VAN OS to include the specific feature of presenting the responses in an audio format as taught by Rakshit such that the user view/hear the response in a desired format as claimed. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination because of the overlapping subject matter (i.e., digital assistant), and the advantage described in Rakshit that presents contextually appropriate responses to user queries; thus, enhance user experience with the virtual assistant (Rakshit: see ¶ 0014-0015).
Claims 26-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kudurshian et al. (US 2017/0358305 A1; hereinafter as Kudurshian) in view of Wolverton et al. (US 2014/0136187 A1; hereafter Wolverton) in view of Van Os et al. (US 10284812 B1; hereinafter Van Os_II) further in view of Min et al. (US 2018/0286392 A1; hereinafter Min).
As to claim 26, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Kudurshian/Wolverton/Van Os_II do not explicitly teach, but Min is relied upon for teaching the limitations of claim 26. Specifically, Min teaches wherein the one or more programs further include instructions for: after presenting, by the digital assistant, the response package, receiving a second natural language input responsive to the presentation of the response package (see ¶ 0057; the monitoring of block 700 may always be enabled so that input mode can be switched from voice to gesture and back again at any time [~in other words, the user can use voice input to switch from gesture mode to voice mode}. ¶ 0048; the voice input mode may be established by a spoken word such as “voice” [~natural language input]);
obtaining a second response package responsive to the second natural language input (see ¶ 0007, 0046; responses); and
after receiving the second natural language speech input, selecting a second response mode of the digital assistant from the plurality of digital assistant response modes, wherein the second response mode is different from the first response mode (see ¶ 0057; the monitoring of block 700 may always be enabled so that input mode can be switched from voice to gesture and back again at any time [~in other words, the user can use voice input to switch from gesture mode to voice mode}. ¶ 0048; the voice input mode may be established by a spoken word such as “voice” [~natural language input]. ¶ 0009, 0055-0056; voice input mode vs gesture input mode); and
in response to selecting the second response mode, presenting, by the digital assistant, the second response package according to the second response mode (Min: see Figs. 3, 4, 6 and ¶ 0049, 0055-0056; responses to subsequently received voice commands/queries are presented audibly, e.g., on the speaker(s) 302 shown in FIG. 3).
The references, each is directed to visual assistant user interface; therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the digital assistant user interface with text response affordance disclosed in Kudurshian/Wolverton/Van Os_II to include the specific feature of presenting the responses in a selected format as taught by Min such that the user view the response in a desired format as claimed. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination because of the overlapping subject matter (i.e., digital assistant), and the advantage described in Min that makes it easier for the user to interact with the virtual assistance (Min: see ¶ 0002).
As to claim 27, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Kudurshian/Wolverton/Van Os_II /Min further teach wherein selecting the first response mode of the digital assistant is performed after obtaining the response package (see ¶ 0007, 0046; responses). Combining Kudurshian/Wolverton/Min would meet the claimed limitations for the same reasons as set forth in claim 26.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/30/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants argued that the cited portions in view of Kudurshian and Wolverton fail to disclose or suggest any selection of a response mode being based on the locked state of the device (see Remark pages 10-11).
In response, the examiner respectfully disagrees and directs the Applicants to the fact that one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Examiner has cited the combination of Kudurshian, Wolverton, and Van OS_II for this limitation. In this case, Kudurshian and Wolverton are relied upon for teaching the limitation of selection of a response mode based on a context/criteria (Wolverton: see ¶ 0019; a vehicle personal assistant to receive human-generated conversational spoken natural language input. ¶ 0020; The vehicle personal assistant may determine whether to search another data source based on the current vehicle-related context. ¶ 0021, 0073, 0074, 0114; The vehicle personal assistant may select a presentation mode from a plurality of possible presentation modes based on the current vehicle-related context and present the reply using the selected presentation mode. The plurality of possible presentation modes may include machine-generated conversational spoken natural language, text, recorded audio, recorded video, and/or digital images). Van OS_II is relied upon for teaching a selection of how to alert the user based on whether the device is in locked state or not (Van OS_II: See Col. 48, 26-39; in some embodiments, the determination to alert a user is based on a disturbance criterion (e.g., whether the device is locked or unlocked). In some embodiments, in accordance with device 600 being locked (e.g., as illustrated in FIG. 6Y), device outputs an alert (e.g., haptic output 678); and in accordance with device 600 being unlocked (e.g., as illustrated in FIG. 6Z), device 600 displays a notification (e.g., banner notification 676 and refrains from providing the alert (e.g., no haptic output).
Therefore, the combination of Kudurshian, Wolverton, and Van OS_II renders obvious the disputed feature for the reasons set forth in the foregoing rejection of claim 1.
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.
The prior art made of record on form PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicant is required under 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(c) to consider these references fully when responding to this action.
It is noted that any citation to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and 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, 1332-33,216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (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 TUYETLIEN T TRAN whose telephone number is (571)270-1033. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:00 AM - 8:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Irete (Fred) Ehichioya can be reached at 571-272-4034. 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.
/TUYETLIEN T TRAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2179
Prosecution Insights