DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the filing of 5/19/26. Claims 1-5, 7-13, 15-21, 23-27 are pending and have been considered below.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5, 7-10, 13, 15-18, 21, 23-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ross (20230367392) in view of Schmidt (2010/0281506.)
Claim 1, 9, 17: Ross discloses an electronic device comprising:
one or more sensors (Fig. 1; par. 19, one or more forward facing cameras 110);
one or more processors (Fig. 5: 514, processor(s)); and
memory storing instructions configured to be executed by the one or more processors (Fig. 5: 525, memory subsystem), the instructions for:
obtaining, via a first subset of the one or more sensors, first sensor data (par. 23, capture an image of an environment that the user 202 is facing), wherein the first sensor data comprises one or more images;
determining contextual information based on the first sensor data (par. 23, The image(s) can be processed as part of the contextual data to identify particular environmental features that the user 202 may be interested in; par. 4, contextual data can indicate location, time, gaze);
comparing the determined contextual information to a database (par. 29-33, server) of shortcuts, wherein each shortcut comprises an associated contextual trigger (par. 24, contextual data such as location data and temporal data can indicate that multiple different Italian restaurants are open near the location of the user 202); and
in response to identifying a match between the determined contextual information and a contextual trigger for a given shortcut in the database, presenting a suggestion associated with the given shortcut (Fig. 2B: 230, 232, 226 selectable suggestion elements.)
However, Ross does not explicitly disclose: wherein the database of shortcuts comprises shortcuts established by different users.
Schmidt discloses a similar device for viewing and sharing shortcuts, including: wherein the database of shortcuts comprises shortcuts established by different users (par. 102, In one embodiment, a user may create a single shared folder where other users publish program shortcuts.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Ross with Schmidt so as to create program shortcuts for a second user that the second user may find interesting (Schmidt par. 102.)
Claim 2, 10, 18: Ross and Schmidt disclose the electronic device defined in claim 1, wherein the instructions further comprise instructions for: obtaining, via a second subset of the one or more sensors, a user input; and in response to the user input, performing an action associated with the given shortcut, wherein performing the action associated with the given shortcut comprises presenting content or transmitting a command to an additional electronic device (Ross par. 32, audio input; par. 47, A user can select a particular selectable suggestion by providing an input gesture, a spoken utterance, and/or any other input that is directed to the particular selectable suggestion; par. 52, microphone.)
Claim 5, 13, 21: Ross and Schmidt disclose the electronic device defined in claim 1, wherein the database of shortcuts is stored in at least one external server and wherein comparing the determined contextual information to a database of shortcuts comprises transmitting the determined contextual information to the at least one external server (Ross par. 29-33, the server device can host the automated assistant 304, and/or computing device 302 can transmit inputs received at one or more assistant interfaces 320 to the server device.)
Claim 7, 15, 23: Ross and Schmidt disclose the electronic device defined in claim 1, wherein the determined contextual information comprises an identity of a physical object in a physical environment of the electronic device, a location, or an activity (Ross par. 4, contextual data can indicate location, time, gaze.)
Claim 8, 16, 24: Ross and Schmidt disclose the electronic device defined in claim 1, wherein the first subset of the one or more sensors comprises a camera, an accelerometer, a depth sensor, a microphone, an ambient light sensor, a magnetometer, a heart rate monitor, a temperature sensor, a touch sensor, a moisture sensor, a gas sensor, a barometer, a gaze-tracking sensor, a button, a light-based proximity sensor, or a global positioning system (GPS) sensor (Ross Fig. 1; par. 19, one or more forward facing cameras 110.)
Claim 25: Ross and Schmidt disclose the electronic device defined in claim 1. However, the combination of Ross and Schmidt does not explicitly disclose: wherein the database of shortcuts comprises shortcuts established by at least hundreds of different users.
The Examiner takes Official Notice of 8,304,654,110 different people on Earth (as of 7/22/26.) Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Ross with Schmidt so allow a tiny fraction (at least 200) of the 8.3 billion different people to also share shortcuts among themselves, in case they have similar tastes.
Claim 26: Ross and Schmidt disclose the electronic device defined in claim 1, wherein comparing the determined contextual information to the database of shortcuts comprises comparing the determined contextual information to the database of shortcuts in response to a user requesting generation of new shortcuts (Ross, Fig. 2B; par. 22, render various suggestions as the user 202 changes their gaze, is construed as requesting generation of new shortcuts (suggestion elements) to be generated for display.)
Claim 27: Ross and Schmidt disclose the electronic device defined in claim 1, wherein comparing the determined contextual information to the database of shortcuts comprises comparing the determined contextual information to the database of shortcuts in response to detecting a repeated pattern in device behavior (Ross par. 63, determining that a prior interaction between the user and the automated assistant is associated with the first location, and the suggestion data is generated further based on the prior interaction between the user and the automated assistant.)
Claim(s) 3, 11, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ross in view of Schmidt and in further view of Wang (12,051419.)
Claim 3, 11, 19: Ross and Schmidt disclose the electronic device defined in claim 2. However, Ross does not explicitly disclose wherein the instructions further comprise instructions for: in response to the user input, setting an action associated with the given shortcut to be automatically performed in response to subsequent identifications of the determined contextual information.
Wang discloses a similar device for context driven automatic action, including:
wherein the instructions further comprise instructions for: in response to the user input, setting an action associated with the given shortcut to be automatically performed in response to subsequent identifications of the determined contextual information (3: 4-26, a system and/or device may determine that one or more conditions have been satisfied for sending a directive to a target device to perform an action. The one or more conditions may have been user defined and/or the one or more conditions may have been determined based on historical use of the target device and/or similar devices. For example, when a user habitually requests that a smart plug be transitioned from an on state to an off state every day at or around 6:00 pm, this historical usage data may be utilized to generate a rule, such as a “routine” (e.g., combination of trigger event, such as time, followed by an action, such as directive to turn light on/off), indicating that a directive to cause the smart plug to transition from the on state to the off state should be sent to the target device at 6:00 pm each day.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Ross with Wang so as to learn from user’s habitual input and automate various functions given a similar context.
Claim(s) 4, 12, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ross in view of Schmidt and in further view of Pastor (20190294690.)
Claim 4, 12, 20: Ross and Schmidt disclose the electronic device defined in claim 1. However, Ross does not explicitly disclose wherein the instructions further comprise instructions for: obtaining, via a second subset of the one or more sensors, a user input; in response to the user input, foregoing performing an action associated with the given shortcut; and in response to the user input, setting the given shortcut to not be suggested during subsequent identifications of the determined contextual information.
Pastor discloses a similar device for generating suggestions, including:
wherein the instructions further comprise instructions for: obtaining, via a second subset of the one or more sensors, a user input; in response to the user input, foregoing performing an action associated with the given shortcut; and in response to the user input, setting the given shortcut to not be suggested during subsequent identifications of the determined contextual information (par. 49, one or more of the non-selected suggestions can also be removed and replaced with new suggestions in accordance with the user selection of suggestions. For example, the user selection of suggestions can be evaluated to infer a user's taste and determine if one or more of the non-selected suggestions reflect the user's taste. Once one or more of the non-selected suggestions do not meet the user's taste, they can be replaced with new suggestions.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Ross with Wang so as to remove the least likely suggestions and narrow down the selection that better meet user’s taste.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-5, 7-13, 15-21, 23-27 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Zhou (11,100,179) content suggestions for an assistant program.
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 ANDREY BELOUSOV whose telephone number is (571) 270-1695 and Andrew.belousov@uspto.gov email. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Friday EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Adam Queler, can be reached at telephone number 571-272-4140. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center and the Private Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center or Private PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center and Private PAIR for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/Andrey Belousov/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2172
7/22/26
Prosecution Insights