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 .
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 7/24/2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of US 11495220 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims 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.
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, 9, 17-20, 22-27 and 29-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Petersen (US 2020/0202238) and in view of Aggarawal et al. (US 2019/0159166).
As to claim 1, Petersen teaches an electronic device comprising a program executing a controlling method of an electronic device, the controlling method comprising: executing an application to transmit and receive information including at least one of text data or voice data with an external device using communication circuitry; receiving the information from the external device through the communication circuitry; identifying a proposal/query included in the information received 102; providing, based on the identified proposal in the information, a message for requesting confirmation of a user regarding the identified proposal and a plurality of objects for receiving a user input regarding the identified proposal 110; and generating/sending a response to the identified proposal based on at least one of the plurality of objects selected by the user input (Fig.4-6.
PNG
media_image1.png
460
504
media_image1.png
Greyscale
it is noted that Petersen doesn’t explicitly teach determining, based on the message, whether or not to require the user confirmation.
However, However, Aggarawal teaches a method comprising the steps of receiving a message intended for a user and in response to receiving the message analyzing the message to determine whether to respond to a message with or without the user notification and/or confirmation based on the message, and based on the decision user confirmation is necessary, providing a notification to the user to confirm the response message (Par.44… The automated assistant application can then ask the user permission to respond to the person with a corrective response (“Adam is asking when you will arrive at the movie theater. Would you like me to tell him you are going to the restaurant?”).) ([0037] The automated assistant application can provide a notification such as, for instance, “I received a message from Adam Smith, and I can respond to it with your location. Would you like me to respond with your location?” If the user responds positively to the notification from the automated assistant application (“Yes, please respond to the message.”), the automated assistant application can generate a responsive message and cause the responsive message to be transmitted to a device associated with the sender (e.g., Adam Smith)) Par [0038] Furthermore, less speech processing would be needed as a result of the automated assistant application interpreting the incoming message and generating a response to one or more queries identified in the incoming message. The only speech processing that may need to be performed would be for example, of the user confirming that they would like the automated assistant application to respond to the message, which can be as simple as a one word response such as “Yes.” As described herein, the automated assistant application can determine when to respond to a notification on behalf of a user based on predicted level(s) of engagement of a user and/or properties of the notification. Moreover, the automated assistant application can determine, based on such considerations, whether to first prompt the user prior to responding (e.g., require user confirmation), to respond without first prompting the user, and/or whether and/or when to provide an indication that the automated assistant has responded on behalf of the user. (Fig.2; Pars.16-17, 36, 47, 56, 69, 74-76, 96, 98-100).
The modification and the combination of the analogous arts would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of applicant’s invention for the purpose of involving the user only when it is required to do so thereby minimizing the user’s involvement.
As to claim 17, Petersen teaches causing the reply to be displayed to the user; and transmit the reply to the external device through the communication circuitry (Figs. 4-6).
As to claim 18, Petersen teaches identifying a proposal is included in the received information, provide the message and the plurality of objects 112A-112C, 162A-162C, or generate the reply (Figs.4-6) and Agrawal teaches identifying whether there is a query requiring the user confirmation.
As to claim 19, Petersen teaches wherein the plurality of objects include text
data or voice data based on the information received from the external device (Figs.4-6).
As to claims 20-21, Petersen teaches wherein the plurality of objects includes at
least one of an object to approve the identified proposal, an object to reject the identified proposal, or an object to receive a direct input from the user (Figs.4-6).
As to claims 22 and 29, Petersen teaches wherein the plurality of objects include an object to receive a direct input, manual entry, from the user the instructions, and wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, further cause the electronic device to cause a user interface for text input to be displayed to the user based on selection of the object to receive the direct input from the user (Figs.4-6; Pars.42, 78-80).
As to claims 23 and 30 Agrwal teaches generating summary text data or summary voice data using at least a portion of the at least one of text data or voice data included in the information received from the external device; and outputting the summary text data or the summary voice data using the application (Pars.6, 43, 56)
As to claim 24, Petersen teaches causing the reply to be displayed to the user; and transmitting the reply to the external device through the communication circuitry (Figs.4-6).
As to claim 25, Agarawal teaches identifying whether the proposal is included in the received information, provide the message and the plurality of objects, or generate the reply (Pars.37-38).
As to claim 26, Petersen teaches wherein the plurality of objects include text data or voice data based on the information received from the external device (Figs.4-6).
As to claim 27, Petersen teaches wherein the plurality of objects includes at least one of an object to approve the identified proposal, an object to reject the identified proposal, or an object to receive a direct input from the user (Figs.4-5).
Regarding claims 9 and 31, the corresponding method and program comprising the steps similar to claim 1 are analogous, therefore rejected as being unpatentable over Petersen and in view of Agrawal et al. for the foregoing reasons.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 21 and 28 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claim 21 is allowable because Petersen doesn’t teach wherein the instructions,
further cause the electronic device to: cause the plurality of objects to be displayed to the user; and cause an indicator indicating that the plurality of objects are not transmitted to the external device to be displayed to the user along with the plurality of objects.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL DEMELASH ABEBE whose telephone number is (571)272-7615. The examiner can normally be reached monday-friday 7-4.
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, Daniel Washburn can be reached at 571-272-5551. 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.
/DANIEL ABEBE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2657
Prosecution Insights