DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 4-6, 9, 11-13, 16, 18-20 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.
Double Patenting
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.
Claims 1, 3, 7-8, 10, 14-15 and 17 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 5, 13 and 19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,073,835. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are obvious variant of each other.
Instant application 18/815,514
Claim 8 (similarly Claims 1 and 15): A system comprising:
US Patent 12,073,835
Claim 19: A system, comprising:
memory storing instructions; and
memory storing instructions;
one or more processors operable to execute the instructions to:
one or more processors operable to execute the instructions to:
determine that a user provided a spoken utterance to an interface of a computing device, wherein the spoken utterance is provided while a first application and a second application are both executing at the computing device;
determine that a user provided a spoken utterance to an interface of a computing device, wherein the spoken utterance is provided while a first application and a second application are both executing at the computing device;
determine that the spoken utterance is directed towards the first application, wherein determining that the spoken utterance is directed towards the first application is based on one or both of: the first application providing an output more recently than the second application, and the first application receiving a user input more recently than the second application;
determine, based on the spoken utterance, that the first application is an intended target for the spoken utterance; …determine, based on the spoken utterance, a duration of a delay before initializing the action via an action request provided to the first application;
generate, based on processing the spoken utterance, an action for the first application to perform;
generate, based on processing the spoken utterance, an action for the first application to perform;
cause an action impending notification to be rendered, in a foreground of a graphical user interface, wherein the action-impending notification includes a characterization of content of the action request;
cause an action impending notification to be rendered, in a foreground of a graphical user interface for the duration of the delay, wherein the action-impending notification comprises: a characterization of content of the action request, and a dynamic graphical representation of a remaining duration of the duration of the delay;
monitor, for a duration that the action impending notification is rendered, for confirmation input from the user for confirming the action or modification input from the user for modifying the action; and
monitor, during the duration of the delay, for confirmation input from the user for confirming the action or modification input from the user for modifying the action; and
when, based on the monitoring, the user is determined to have provided the confirmation input for confirming the action request or is determined to have refrained from providing either the confirmation input or the modification input: cause initialization of performance of the action by providing the action request to the first application, wherein the action request is provided to the first application responsive to determining that the spoken utterance is directed towards the first application.
when, based on the monitoring, the user is determined to have provided the confirmation input for confirming the action request during the duration of the delay or is determined to have allowed the duration of the delay to expire without providing either the confirmation input or the modification input: cause initialization of performance of the action by providing the action request to the first application, wherein the action request is provided to the first application responsive to determining that the first application is the intended target for the spoken utterance.
Claim 10 (similarly Claims 3 and 17): The system of claim 9,
Claim 5: The method of claim 1,
wherein determining that the spoken utterance is directed towards the first application is based on the first application having provided the output more recently than the second application, and
wherein determining that the first application is the intended target of the spoken utterance is based on the first application having provided a most recent notification,
wherein the output corresponds to a notification for an incoming message from a sender.
wherein the most recent notification corresponds to an incoming message from a sender.
Claim 14 (similarly Claim 7): The system of claim 8,
Claim 13: The method of claim 12,
wherein one or more of the processors are further operable to execute the instructions to:
further comprising:
access contextual data characterizing one or more properties of a context in which the user provided the spoken utterance, wherein the duration, for which the action impending notification is rendered, is determined based on the contextual data.
accessing contextual data characterizing one or more properties of a context in which the user provided the spoken utterance, wherein determining whether to render the action impending notification is further based on the contextual data.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IBRAHIM SIDDO whose telephone number is (571)272-4508. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-5:30PM.
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, Akwasi Sarpong can be reached at 5712703438. 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.
/IBRAHIM SIDDO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2681