DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the application filed 4/25/2024.
Claims 1-20 have been submitted for examination.
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, 3, 4, 8-10, 12, 13, and 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (US 2023/0245651), in view of Pretlove et al. (US 2006/0241792), hereinafter Pretlove.
As per claim 1, Wang teaches the following:
a method, comprising:
receiving, via a user interface, a request from a user, wherein the request is associated with an
processing the request to identify an intent of the request based at least in part on a context . As Wang further teaches in paragraph [0491], steps 2402 and 2403, the system analyzes the request using machine learning algorithms and natural language processing to understand the user’s intent and may further analyze various factors such as preferences, environment, and a context of the request;
generating a prompt designed to elicit a response from a generative artificial intelligence (GAI) model, wherein the prompt comprises:
the context
a request to generate user interface functionality in the form of executable code for performing an action corresponding to the intent. As Wang teaches in paragraph [0491], step 2404, the system predicts the most appropriate UI;
receiving, in response to submitting the prompt to the GAI model, the user interface functionality; and executing the user interface functionality. As Wang teaches in paragraph [0492], the most appropriate UI is displayed.
However, Wang does not explicitly teach of the device being an industrial device. In a similar field of endeavor, Pretlove teaches of a method of generating user interfaces (see abstract). Pretlove further teaches in paragraph [0001] that user interfaces may be generated for monitoring and/or controlling an industrial device
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have modified the device interface of Wang with the industrial devices of Pretlove. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to have made such modification because as Pretlove teaches in paragraphs [0003] – [0005], such generated interfaces benefit users in creating common interaction controls and visualizations.
Regarding claim 3, modified Wang teaches the method of claim 1 as described above. Wang further teaches the following:
the request comprises a spoken request. As Wang teaches in paragraph [0165], the system allows the AI to process spoken language input from users.
Regarding claim 4, modified Wang teaches the method of claim 3 as described above. Wang further teaches the following:
wherein executing the user interface functionality comprises: transmitting, to a device providing the user interface, response instructions to emit a natural language audio signal associated with the user interface functionality via a speaker communicatively coupled to the device. Wang teaches in paragraph [0150] that NLG module 205 is responsible for generating speech output. Further see paragraph [0208].
Regarding claim 8, modified Wang teaches the method of claim 1 as described above. However, as described above, Wang does not explicitly teach of industrial devices. Pretlove teaches the following:
wherein the context comprises a type of the industrial device, an operation performed by the industrial device in an industrial process, a parameter used by the industrial device, a status of the industrial device, connectivity of the industrial device to other industrial devices, standard operating procedures associated with the industrial device, historical audit data for the industrial device, past interaction information for the industrial device, or a combination thereof. As Pretlove teaches in paragraph [0072] and [0073], an interface may include various data including an “On line” parameter 83 (connectivity to other devices), readings such as different measurements (status of device), trends, maintenance history, etc.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have modified the device interface of Wang with the industrial devices of Pretlove. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to have made such modification because as Pretlove teaches in paragraphs [0003] – [0005], such generated interfaces benefit users in creating common interaction controls and visualizations.
Regarding claim 9, modified Wang teaches the method of claim 1 as described above. However, as described above, Wang does not explicitly teach of industrial devices. Pretlove teaches the following:
wherein the action comprises rendering modifications to the user interface, displaying a status in the user interface for the industrial device, determining a value for a metric of the industrial device, displaying a determined value for a metric of the industrial device in the user interface, triggering a process of the industrial device, triggering entry into a state of the industrial device, configuring a parameter of the industrial device, or a combination thereof. As Pretlove teaches in paragraph [0072] and [0073], an interface may include various data including metric values and status.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have modified the device interface of Wang with the industrial devices of Pretlove. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to have made such modification because as Pretlove teaches in paragraphs [0003] – [0005], such generated interfaces benefit users in creating common interaction controls and visualizations.
As per claim 10, Wang teaches the following:
an
one or more processors; and one or more memories having stored thereon instructions that. See paragraph [0501].
However, Wang does not explicitly teach of the device being an industrial device. In a similar field of endeavor, Pretlove teaches of a method of generating user interfaces (see abstract). Pretlove further teaches in paragraph [0001] that user interfaces may be generated for monitoring and/or controlling an industrial device
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have modified the device interface of Wang with the industrial devices of Pretlove. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to have made such modification because as Pretlove teaches in paragraphs [0003] – [0005], such generated interfaces benefit users in creating common interaction controls and visualizations.
The remaining limitations of claim 10 are substantially similar to those of claim 1 and are rejected using the same reasoning.
Regarding claims 12, 13, 17 and 18, modified Wang teaches the system of claim 10 as described above. The remaining limitations of claims 12, 13, 17, and 18 are substantially similar to those of claims 3, 4, 8, and 9 respectively, and are rejected using the same reasoning.
As per claim 19, Wang teaches the following:
A computer-readable memory device having stored thereon instructions that, upon execution by one or more processors. See paragraph [0501].
The remaining limitations of claim 10 are substantially similar to those of claim 1 and are rejected using the same reasoning.
Claim(s) 2, 11, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Pretlove as applied to claims 1, 10, and 19 above, and further in view of Westberg et al. (US 2020/0150981), hereinafter Westberg.
Regarding claim 2, modified Wang teaches the method of claim 1 as described above. However, Wang does not explicitly teach of searching preprogrammed functionality and returning a negative response. In a similar field of endeavor, Westberg teaches of a method dynamically creating a user interface (see abstract). Westberg further teaches the following:
searching preprogrammed functionality for the user interface functionality, wherein the generating the prompt is in response to the searching the preprogrammed functionality returning a negative response. As Westberg teaches in paragraph [0044], and corresponding Fig. 4B, step 424, a machine learning manager determines is there are similar or compatible models of service constructs. If no such service constructs are found (negative response), a new UI is dynamically constructed.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have modified the UI determination method of Wang with the dynamic creation method of Westberg. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to have made such modification because while Wang teaches of selecting a most appropriate UI (see Fig. 24, step 2404), the generation of Westberg would benefit users when no such pre-existing interface exists.
Regarding claim 11, modified Wang teaches the system of claim 10 as described above. The remaining limitations of claim 11 are substantially similar to those of claim 2 and are rejected using the same reasoning.
Regarding claim 20, modified Wang teaches the device of claim 19 as described above. The remaining limitations of claim 20 are substantially similar to those of claim 2 and are rejected using the same reasoning.
Claim(s) 5 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Pretlove as applied to claims 1, 3, 10, and 12 above, and further in view of Lee et al. (US 2021/0097158), hereinafter Lee.
Regarding claim 5, modified Wang teaches the method of claim 3 as described above. Wang further teaches the following:
translating the spoken request to a textual request. As Wang teaches in paragraph [0165], the speech recognition module 203 is responsible for converting spoken language into written text.
However, Wang does not explicitly teach of correlating a voice with a user. Lee teaches the following:
in response to receiving the spoken request, evaluating, by a voice recognition engine, the spoken request, wherein the evaluating comprises: correlating a voice identified from the spoken request with the user and an associated set of user credentials for the user; authenticating the user based on the user credentials. As Lee teaches in the abstract, in response to receiving a voice command, voice print information is searched in order to identify and authenticate a user.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have modified the voice input of Wang with the user identification method of Lee. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to have made such modification because Wang expresses a desire for authentication methods in paragraph [0218], which states the AI implements proper authentication and authorization protocols, and the authentication method of Lee would provide such security.
Regarding claim 14, modified Wang teaches the system of claim 11 as described above. The remaining limitations of claim 14 are substantially similar to those of claim 5 and are rejected using the same reasoning.
Claim(s) 6, 7, 15, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Pretlove as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of Amit et al. (US 2018/0131719), hereinafter Amit.
Regarding claim 6, modified Wang teaches the method of claim 1 as described above. However, Wang does not explicitly teach of performing an execution analysis. Amit teaches the following:
in response to receiving the user interface functionality, performing an execution analysis of the user interface functionality based on the context of the industrial device, a set of user credentials associated with the user, the request, the user interface functionality, or a combination thereof. As Amit teaches in paragraph [0103], and corresponding Fig. 2E, at step 202 a packet is issued by an app over a network (in response to receiving functionality). As Amit teaches in paragraph [0105], in response to receiving the packet, a threat level is determined, where the threat level may consider a transmitting device not complying with corporate regulations (context of device), a user operating the transmitting device, based on an estimation whether the device is operated by a different user than an authorized user which may be determined using biometric identification methods (user credentials), and/or based on anomalous behavior detection (the request or user interface functionality).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have modified the user interface provision of Wang with the security protocols of Amit. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to have made such modification because Wang shows a clear desire for security measures in paragraph [0084], and the security measures of Amit would further such security.
Regarding claim 7, modified Wang teaches the method of claim 6 as described above. However, as described above, Wang does not explicitly teach of performing an execution analysis. Amit teaches the following:
wherein the execution analysis comprises: determining whether a breach is identified, wherein the determining comprises: blocking execution of the user interface functionality based on determining a breach is identified; and allowing execution of the user interface functionality based on determining no breach is identified. As Amit teaches in paragraph [0106], packets associated with an exploitation of a security breach may be blocked. As Amit further shows in Fig. 2E, packets which are determined not to be a security threat are not blocked in step 275.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have modified the user interface provision of Wang with the security protocols of Amit. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to have made such modification because Wang shows a clear desire for security measures in paragraph [0084], and the security measures of Amit would further such security.
Regarding claims 15 and 16, modified Wang teaches the system of claim 10 as described above. The remaining limitations of claims 15 and 16 are substantially similar to those of claims 6 and 7 respectively, and are rejected using the same reasoning.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Brown et al. (US 2020/0112454), generating custom user interface based upon spoken command and indicated smart devices.
Argroves et al. (US 11,579,764), teaches of generating interfaces to monitor “industrial” devices.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY A DISTEFANO whose telephone number is (571)270-1644. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9 am - 5 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, William Bashore can be reached at 5712424088. 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.
/GREGORY A. DISTEFANO/
Examiner
Art Unit 2174
/WILLIAM L BASHORE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2174