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 .
Specification
Content of Specification
(b) CROSS-REFERENCES TO RELATED APPLICATIONS: See 37 CFR 1.78 and MPEP § 211 et seq.
The specification is objected to, because the continuity information is missing from the specification. The current application is a continuation of US Patent Application 17/532199, which has now issued as a US Patent. This information is currently missing from the specification. Correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Yoon et al (20180285070).
As per claim 1, Yoon et al (20180285070) teaches a method implemented by one or more processors (fig. 10a), the method comprising:
receiving, at a computing device, a first portion of a request from a user, wherein the first portion of the request received from the user is included in a single continuous user input directed to the computing device (as, receiving user input via user utterance including an intention or a command, with an intelligence agent transmitting the interpretation of the user utterance to a server – para 0177; and the ability of systems to handle complete, continuous input from the user – para 0006, and para 0142/0160);
determining, that the first portion of the request that is received from the user includes the particular word or phrase that is mapped to the generic container graphical element (as determining the intention of the user input – para 0178);
causing the generic container graphical element to be rendered at a display of the computing device, where the generic container graphical element can be dynamically adapted with any one of multiple disparate tailored container graphical elements (as, generating and displaying, a first GUI output which could be an object or tap including specific text, phrase, symbol, letter, etc. and displaying in an area corresponding to an attribute of parameter information – para 0180);
receiving, at the computing device, a second portion of the request from the user, wherein the second portion of the request received from the user is included in the single, continuous user input directed to the computing device that includes the first portion of the request (as receiving additional user input via utterance – para 0181; ; and the ability of systems to handle complete, continuous input from the user – para 0006, and para 0142/0160 – ie, the continuous single input is later partitioned into recognizable sections – see para 0100); and
causing, based on the second portion of the request, the generic container graphical element rendered at the display interface to be dynamically adapted with one or more particular tailored container graphical elements from among the multiple disparate tailored container graphical elements (as generating a second GUI based on the first GUI and the additional derived information from the additional utterance – para 0182).
As per claim 2, Yoon et al (20180285070) teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising:
determining that the second portion of the request received from the user corresponds to a particular intent from among one or more candidate intents (as receiving additional information input performed by the user when the initial utterance does not contain enough information – para 0181; see also (as providing/determining the user intentions – para 0177, 0178, reflecting back on the detail of the derivation of user intentions – see para 0100-0102, for the details of the NLU processing the utterance)),
wherein the one or more particular tailored container graphical elements utilized to dynamically adapt the generic container graphical element rendered at the display of the client device are associated with the particular intent (as generating a second GUI based on the first GUI and the additional derived information from the additional utterance – para 0182; wherein the additional information is used to determine the user intentions – para 0177, 0178).
As per claim 3, Yoon et al (20180285070) teaches the method of claim 2, wherein the one or more particular tailored container graphical elements characterizes a slot value for a corresponding parameter associated with the particular intent as, identifying that the input contains parameter information is not valid or omitted – para 0179).
As per claim 4, Yoon et al (20180285070) teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising:
causing the display of the computing device to render natural language content
characterizing the first portion of the request simultaneous to rendering the generic container
graphical element as rendering both the first portion, on the display and the graphic element – para 0180).
As per claim 5, Yoon et al (20180285070) teaches the method of claim 4, wherein the natural language content characterizing the first portion of the request is rendered in a separate portion of the display relative to the generic container graphical element ((as rendering both the first portion, on the display and the graphic element – para 0180); and generating a second GUI based on the first GUI and the additional derived information from the additional utterance – para 0182).
As per claims 6,7, Yoon et al (20180285070) teaches the method of claim 1, wherein each of the one or more particular tailored container graphical elements include a corresponding particular graphical control element that enables the user to interact with each of the one or more particular tailored container graphical elements and in claim 7, receiving, at the computing device, further user input directed to a given corresponding particular graphical control element from among the corresponding particular graphical control elements; and causing the generic container graphical element rendered at the display of the client device to be further dynamically adapted based on the further user input. (see para 0101 as mapped above and see also para 0088 collecting states of apps of the device; and further, para 0102 using a personal language module to determine personalized information for, as an example, a music list – end of para 0102) towards apps of the device, including reproduction of music – para 0177, para 0065, as an example; the settings of the apps are monitored and updated according to the recognized intent of the user utterance).
Claims 8-14 are system claims, that perform the steps of method claims 1-7 above and as such, claims 8-14 are similar in scope and content to claims 1-7; therefore, claims 8-14 are rejected under similar rationale as presented against claims 1-7 above. Furthermore, Yoon et al (20180285070) teaches storage of the instructions in a memory – para 0239, and processors – para 0241.
Claims 15-20 are non-transitory computer readable storage medium claims that perform the steps of claims 1-7 and as such, claims 15-20 are similar in scope and content to claim 1-7; therefore, claims 15-20 are rejected under similar rationale as presented against claims 1-7 above. Furthermore, Yoon et al (20180285070) teaches a computer storage readable medium storing the instructions – para 0241.
Response to Arguments
As per applicants filed Terminal Disclaimer, examiner notes that the Terminal Disclaimer has been approved, and that the Obviousness Type Double Patenting rejection has been overcome, and that particular rejection has been removed. Applicant's other arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. As per applicants’ representatives’ arguments against the Objection to the Specification, examiner points to the MPEP, including FP 1.77 “Arrangement of application elements: including “Cross-Reference to related applications” (examiner notes that the word ‘should’ modifies the ‘ordering of the elements’, NOT, the elements is an option. Applicants arguments are toward, what is required in the Application Data Sheet – examiner notes that there was NO “Objection to the Data Sheet”, rather, and “Objection to the Specification”. The objection is retained, and correction is required. As to applicants arguments against the Yoon reference, and the allegation that “Yoon is silent…where both the ‘first portion of [the] request’ and the ‘second portion of the request’ are ‘included in a single, continuous user input…’”, examiner argues that the user input is not limited to a single type command/intent – ie, the user utterance, in a single continuous utterance, can contain more than one command/intent – e.g., see para 0142, wherein the example is given wherein the user utterance is simple/ambiguous; however, further in para 0142, it is clear that when the user utterance is more detailed (ie, already has the complete information), the path rule is not incomplete, and hence, Yoon teaches the capability of processing/handling one continuous utterance with a complete/multiple intent/command input – see para 0160 of an example of a completed input; see also para 0006, wherein Yoon is solving the problem of, an ambiguous input because, otherwise, the completed input is processed accordingly (in Yoon’s disclosure, as well as other prior art systems).
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 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see related art listed on the PTO-892 form.
Furthermore, in detail, the following references were found, being applicable to applicants claim scope as well as specification:
Pandiri (20220253277) teaches user query input and displayed in multi-type fields (abstract).
Coimbra et al (20190340200) teaches user interfacing with multiple assistants (Fig. 3), including a display interface (Fig. 5).
Ni et al (20190361575 teaches knob-like brightness control tied to numerical values – fig. 2b, para 0034.
Novitchenko et al (20200380973) teaches the suggestion of apps according to the recognized input (see fig. 9c)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael Opsasnick, telephone number (571)272-7623, who is available Monday-Friday, 9am-5pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Mr. Richemond Dorvil, can be reached at (571)272-7602. 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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/Michael N Opsasnick/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2658 07/18/2026
