CTNF 18/770,282 CTNF 83017 DETAILED ACTION This action is in response to the application filed 7/11/2024. Claims 1-20 have been submitted for examination. Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Double Patenting 08-33 AIA The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg , 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman , 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi , 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum , 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel , 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington , 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA/25, or PTO/AIA/26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer. 08-34 AIA Claim s 1 and 11 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 10,996,925, hereinafter ‘925 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because Claim 1 of ‘925 teaches the limitations of instant claim 1 in following manner: Instant Claim 1 Claim 1 of ‘925 A method implemented by one or more processors, the method comprising: A method implemented by one or more processors, the method comprising: receiving, via a vehicle sensor that is operational when a user is riding in a vehicle, vehicle sensor data ; rendering, at a graphical user interface of a display panel that is in communication with a vehicle computing device of the vehicle, content that corresponds to the vehicle sensor data ; receiving, via a vehicle application that is operational when a user is riding in a vehicle, vehicle application data that corresponds to content being rendered at a graphical user interface of the vehicle application, wherein the graphical user interface is displayed at a display panel that is in communication with a vehicle computing device of the vehicle; determining that the vehicle sensor data is associated with assistant data that is available via an automated assistant, wherein the automated assistant is accessible via the vehicle computing device; determining, in response to receiving the vehicle application data, that the vehicle application data is associated with assistant data that is available via an automated assistant, wherein the automated assistant is accessible via the vehicle computing device; generating suggestion data in response to determining that the v ehicle sensor data is associated with the assistant data, wherein the suggestion data identifies an action that is associated with the assistant data and the vehicle sensor data ; and generating suggestion data in response to determining that the v ehicle application data is associated with the assistant data, wherein the suggestion data identifies an action that is associated with the assistant data and the vehicle application data, and the suggestion data characterizes natural language content that is different from the content that is being rendered at the display panel; causing a suggestion element to be rendered at the graphical user interface of the display panel based on the suggestion data and while the user is riding in the vehicle, wherein the suggestion element includes natural language content. causing a particular suggestion element to be rendered at the graphical user interface of the vehicle application based on the suggestion data and while the user is riding in the vehicle, wherein the particular suggestion element includes the natural language content As seen in the table above, the main difference between instant claim 1 and claim 1 of ‘227 is that instant claim 1 is directed to “vehicle sensor data”, while claim 1 of ‘227 is directed to “vehicle application data”. 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 vehicle application data of claim 1 of ‘227 with the vehicle sensor data of instant claim 1. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to have made such modification because claim 1 of ‘227 suggests the receiving of sensor information in the limitation directed to “determining an estimated time of arrival”, where such sensor data, such as, for example, GPS, would benefit such determinations. Instant Claim 11 is directed to similar subject matter as instant claim 1 and is rejected using the same reasoning . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-12-aia AIA (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. 07-15-03-aia AIA Claim(s) 1, 3, 4, 6, 11, 13, 14, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Raghunathan et al. (US 2014/0108307), hereinafter Raghunathan . As per claim 1 , Raghunathan teaches the following: a method implemented by one or more processors , (see abstract, “a processor”), the method comprising: receiving, via a vehicle sensor that is operational when a user is riding in a vehicle, vehicle sensor data . As Raghunathan teaches in paragraph [0018], and corresponding Fig. 1, the system interacts with a user and one or more data sources, where the sources may comprise vehicle on-board sensors 106; rendering, at a graphical user interface of a display panel that is in communication with a vehicle computing device of the vehicle, content that corresponds to the vehicle sensor data. As Raghunathan teaches in paragraph [0041], the operation begins with a user selecting a route for directions which is displayed on the display device. Raghunathan teaches in paragraph [0003] that a GPS system may be utilized to determine a vehicle’s current location for determining routes. Therefore, the route corresponds to the GPS sensor; determining that the vehicle sensor data is associated with assistant data that is available via an automated assistant, wherein the automated assistant is accessible via the vehicle computing device . As Raghunathan teaches in paragraph [0031], a suggestion/recommendation module 210 (automated assistant) has access to user profiles (assistant data) and contextual information (vehicle sensor data); generating suggestion data in response to determining that the vehicle sensor data is associated with the assistant data, wherein the suggestion data identifies an action that is associated with the assistant data and the vehicle sensor data . As Raghunathan further teaches in paragraph [0031], the information is utilized in generating suggestions. Raghunathan gives an example in paragraph [0032] where the system utilizes current route information (vehicle sensor data) and user profile data of meeting information (associated assistant data) to formulate a recommendation; and causing a suggestion element to be rendered at the graphical user interface of the display panel based on the suggestion data and while the user is riding in the vehicle, wherein the suggestion element includes natural language content. As Raghunathan further teaches in paragraph [0032], the suggestion may be presented via a visual display device and contain natural language content, such as “considering that the current route is jammed because….”. Regarding claim 3 , Raghunathan teaches the method of claim 1 as described above. Raghunathan further teaches the following: the graphical user interface is executed via a vehicle application. R aghunathan teaches in paragraph [0021] that the suggestions can be displayed to the user through a display device. Raghunathan further teaches of displaying a route driving application in paragraph [0041]. Therefore, the suggestions are executed via a “vehicle application”, i.e., the vehicle route data is utilized by the suggestion module. Regarding claim 4 , Raghunathan teaches the method of claim 3 as described above. Raghunathan further teaches the following: the suggestion element is rendered based on a third-party application. As Raghunathan teaches in paragraph [0018], the system utilizes third party providers as data sources. Therefore, suggestions are based upon these third party provider applications. Regarding claim 6 , Raghunathan teaches the method of claim 3 as described above. Raghunathan further teaches the following: determining an estimated time of arrival of the user to a destination location, wherein generating the suggestion data is based on the estimated time of arrival of the user to the destination location . As Raghunathan teaches in paragraph [0032], the system may determine that current traffic conditions would cause an arrival time later than a target time, i.e., the suggestion is based upon an ETA later than that of a scheduled meeting. As per claim 11 , Raghunathan teaches the following: a method implemented by one or more processors , (see abstract, “a processor”), the method comprising: receiving, via a vehicle sensor that is operational when a user is riding in a vehicle, vehicle sensor data that corresponds to content being rendered at a graphical user interface of a display panel that is in communication with a vehicle computing device of the vehicle . As Raghunathan teaches in paragraph [0018], and corresponding Fig. 1, the system interacts with a user and one or more data sources, where the sources may comprise vehicle on-board sensors 106. As Raghunathan teaches in paragraph [0041], the operation begins with a user selecting a route for directions which is displayed on the display device; determining that the vehicle sensor data is associated with assistant data that is available via an automated assistant, wherein the automated assistant is accessible via the vehicle computing device. As Raghunathan teaches in paragraph [0031], a suggestion/recommendation module 210 (automated assistant) has access to user profiles (assistant data) and contextual information (vehicle sensor data); generating suggestion data in response to determining that the vehicle sensor data is associated with the assistant data, wherein the suggestion data identifies an action that is associated with the assistant data and the vehicle sensor data. As Raghunathan further teaches in paragraph [0031], the information is utilized in generating suggestions. Raghunathan gives an example in paragraph [0032] where the system utilizes current route information (vehicle sensor data) and user profile data of meeting information (associated assistant data) to formulate a recommendation; and causing a suggestion element to be rendered at the graphical user interface of the display panel based on the suggestion data and while the user is riding in the vehicle, wherein the suggestion element includes natural language content. As Raghunathan further teaches in paragraph [0032], the suggestion may be presented via a visual display device and contain natural language content, such as “considering that the current route is jammed because….”. Regarding claims 13, 14, and 16, Raghunathan teaches the method of claim 11 as described above. The remaining limitations of claims 13, 14, and 16 are substantially similar to those of claims 3, 4, and 6 respectively, and are rejected using the same reasoning . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 2, 5, 12, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raghunathan as applied to claims 1, 4, 11, and 14, in view of Hardy et al. (US 2010/0082239), hereinafter Hardy . Regarding claim 2 , Raghunathan teaches the method of claim 1 as described above. While Ragunathan teaches in paragraph [0033] that the user provides feedback in response to suggestions, Ragunathan does not explicitly teach of the suggestions being selectable elements to provide said feedback. In a similar field of endeavor, Hardy teaches of a method of providing recommendations in a map application based upon data from a calendar application (see abstract). Hardy further teaches the following: the suggestion element includes a selectable element that initiates the action when selected. As Hardy shows in Fig. 2, step 500, the user may select a recommended location via input. 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 suggestion selection of Raghunathan with the direct user selection of Hardy. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to have made such modification because such direct selection may benefit users who do not prefer voice input. Regarding claim 5 , Raghunathan teaches the method of claim 4 as described above. While Ragunathan teaches in paragraph [0018] that third party software is utilized, Ragunathan does not explicitly teach of the suggestions being rendered by said software. In a similar field of endeavor, Hardy teaches of a method of providing recommendations in a map application based upon data from a calendar application (see abstract). Hardy further teaches the following: the suggestion element is rendered by the third-party application or another third-party application. As Hardy shows in Fig. 3, suggestions based on calendar application information are presented in a map application, separate from said calendar, thus “third-party”. 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 suggestions of Raghunathan with the third party rendering of Hardy. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to have made such modification because such recommendations would benefit users in providing relevant recommendations within an application currently in use by the user. Regarding claims 12 and 15, Raghunathan teaches the method of claims 11 and 14 as described above. The remaining limitations of claims 12 and 15 are substantially similar to those of claims 2 and 5 respectively, and are rejected using the same reasoning . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 7, 8, 17, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raghunathan as applied to claims 1 and 11, in view of Irani et al. (US 10,496,705), hereinafter Irani . Regarding claim 7 , Raghunathan teaches the method of claim 1 as described above. While Raghunathan teaches in paragraph [0021] that the system provides one or more suggestions , Raghunathan does not explicitly teach of displaying suggestions in different areas based on other content. In a similar field of endeavor, Irani teaches of a method for displaying suggestions associated with a task (see abstract). Irani further teaches the following: wherein the graphical user interface of the display panel includes a first area that includes the content, and a second area that includes other content, and wherein causing the suggestion element to be rendered at the graphical user interface of the display panel includes: causing the suggestion element to be rendered at the first area of the graphical user interface and another suggestion element to be rendered at the second area of the graphical user interface, wherein the other suggestion element is based on other content . As Irani shows in Fig. 8N, different task recommendations 884 are displayed in different areas, each recommendation corresponding to a different application (based on other content). **Further see Fig. 22D. 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 suggestions of Raghunathan with the different application recommendations of Irani. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to have made such modification because such recommendations would benefit users in providing alternate tasks given a current situation, such as, for example, given the example Raghunathan teaches in paragraph [0032] of a user being late, the alternate recommendations of Irani may allow the user to send a message regarding the ETA given a first application, or select a different route given a second application. Irani further suggests the use of vehicle data in Fig. 22B, 2216. Regarding claim 8 , modified Raghunathan teaches the method of claim 7 as described above. However as described above, while Raghunathan teaches of one or more suggestions based upon vehicle data, Raghunathan does not explicitly teach of another action associated with the other content. Irani teaches the following: the vehicle sensor data also corresponds to the other content, and wherein generating the suggestion data includes identifying another action that is associated with the other content. Irani teaches in column 2, lines 40-55 of displaying a plurality of candidate task affordances (recommendations), column 3, lines 58-67, each recommendation is based upon context data associated with the device (vehicle sensor data of the modified system), and show in Fig. 8N that each affordance corresponds to a different application (another action associated with other content). 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 suggestions of Raghunathan with the different application recommendations of Irani. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to have made such modification because such recommendations would benefit users in providing alternate tasks given a current situation, such as, for example, given the example Raghunathan teaches in paragraph [0032] of a user being late, the alternate recommendations of Irani may allow the user to send a message regarding the ETA given a first application, or select a different route given a second application. Regarding claims 17 and 18, Raghunathan teaches the method of claim 11 as described above. The remaining limitations of claims 17 and 18 are substantially similar to those of claims 7 and 8 respectively, and are rejected using the same reasoning . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 10 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raghunathan as applied to claims 1 and 11, in view of Gould et al. (US 5,799,279), hereinafter Gould . Regarding claim 10, Raghunathan teaches the method of claim 1 as described above. Raghunathan further teaches that the suggestion is rendered by a vehicle application in paragraph [0041]. However, Raghunathan does not explicitly teach of the suggestion charactering a spoken utterance. In a similar field of endeavor, Gould is directed to speech recognition (see abstract). Gould further teaches the following: the suggestion element is rendered by a vehicle application, and the natural language content of the suggestion element characterizes a spoken utterance that, when spoken by the user to the vehicle computing device, causes the action to be initialized via the automated assistant . As Gould shows in Fig. 5, a command browser may be displayed which depicts commands which may be spoken by 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 suggestions of Raghunathan with the display of possible spoken commands of Gould. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to have made such modification because the command interface benefits users who may not know exactly how to phrase a desired command utterance. Regarding claim 20, Raghunathan teaches the method of claim 11 as described above. The remaining limitations of claim 20 are substantially similar to those of claim 10 and are rejected using the same reasoning . Allowable Subject Matter 12-151-08 AIA 07-43 12-51-08 Claim s 9 and 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Mendels et al. (US 2018/0315147), recommendation on mode of transportation. 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 Application/Control Number: 18/770,282 Page 2 Art Unit: 2174 Application/Control Number: 18/770,282 Page 3 Art Unit: 2174 Application/Control Number: 18/770,282 Page 4 Art Unit: 2174
Prosecution Insights