DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
1. This office action is in response to applicant’s communication filed on 07/21/2026 in response to PTO Office Action mailed 04/21/2026. The Applicant’s remarks and amendments to the claims and/or the specification were considered with the results as follows.
2. In response to the last Office Action, claims 1, 2, 10, 11, 13-15, 18 and 20 are amended. As a result, claims 1-6, 10-16 and 18-20 are pending in this office action.
Response to Arguments
3. Applicant's arguments with respect to 35 USC 101 have been fully considered but are not persuasive and the details are as follows:
Applicant indicated “claims 1, 2, 10, 11, 13-15, 18 and 20 are amended and Applicant’s requested reconsidered of the office action’s 101 rejection at least in view of the amendments included herein”.
In response to Applicant’s amendment reciting “determining, based on the request referencing a personal entity that is associated with the user” does not alter the eligibility analysis. The amended limitation merely specifics the information considered when determining whether a request is personal, but the determination itself remains an evaluation or judgment that falls within the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas. Likewise, the added limitation of “refraining from causing a non-access-restricted search” merely recites the result of that abstract determination and does not improve the functioning of a computer or any other technology. Rather, the claim continues to employ generic computing components to automate that abstract idea of deciding whether to search for personal information or public information based on the natural of the request. Accordingly, the amendments do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, nor do they provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the rejection under 35 U.S.C 101 is maintained.
Applicant’s argument with respect to 35 USC 103 have been considered but are moot in view of new ground(s) of rejection.
Applicant amended claim 1 to recite determining whether a request referencing a personal entity that is associated with the user, in response to determining that request is referencing a personal entity and can be satisfied using access-restricted content, refraining from causing a non-access-restricted search. The cited reference Maier does not teach or suggest these limitations. Rather, Maier describes a federated database architecture in which, when the requested data comprises both restricted-access data and non-restricted access data, the request results in retrieval of data from both the centralized database storing non-restricted data and the local system storing restricted data to produce a federated view. To address the amended limitations, the Examiner has added Wagner to this rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In claims 1, 13 and 20, the claim limitation “in response to determining that the request is a personal request” renders the claims indefinite under 35 USC 112(b) because all the claim limitations depend on this condition may not be invoked [e.g., the searching step, the determining step and the rendering step may not be invoked if the request is not a personal request]. Claims 1, 13 and 20 introduce uncertainty regarding whether the limitations after this condition are mandatory or optional. Specifically, if the condition is not met, the resulting functional requirements are not triggered, leaving the scope of the invention unclear and ambiguous.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
5. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 1-20 [1-12 are process claims, 13-19 are machine claims and 20 is an article of manufacture claim] are rejected under 35 U.S.C 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claims 1-20 are directed to the abstract idea of causing one or more portions of access-restricted content to be rendered at the client device, as explained in detail below. The claims do not include elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the elements can be concepts performed in the human mind which do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 1 recites a method comprises:
receiving user input […] of a user, the user input including a request […] (e.g., observing a user input including a request can be performed in the human mind);
determining, based on the request referencing a personal entity that is associated with the user, the request is a personal request (e.g., evaluating the request to determine whether is a personal request or a non-personal request can be performed in the human mind);
in response to determining that the request is a personal request: causing an access-restricted search to be executed over an access-restricted database that is specific to the user that provided the user input (e.g., searching a restricted data storage in response to determining that the request is directed to a personal request can be performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation and judgment);
determining, based on access-restricted content obtained in response to the access-restricted search over the access-restricted database that is personal to the user, whether the request can be satisfied using the access-restricted content and in response to determining that the request can be satisfied using the access restricted content (e.g., obtaining and rending personal data from the restricted data storage if the request can be satisfied by the restricted data storage constitutes a mental process as observation, evaluation, and judgement using pen and paper);
refraining from causing a non-access-restricted search to be executed over a non-access-restricted database that is general to a plurality of users (e.g., refrain a search over a non-access-restricted database constitutes a mental process as observation, evaluation, and judgement).
Claim 1 as it is recited falls within one of the groupings of abstract ideas [e.g., mental process] enumerated in the 2019 PEG. The recited concept can be performed in human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion. That is, other than reciting at least an automated assistant being accessible at a client device to perform operations, nothing in the claim elements preclude the step from practically being performed in the mind. The additional element in the claim recites a client device and/or a client device display are recited at a high level of generality and add no more to the claimed invention than the components that perform an abstract idea. The additional element merely uses a client device as a tool to display data [e.g., one or more portions of the access-restricted content] after a series of data gathering steps. The displaying and data gathering steps are insignificant extra-solution activity, thus, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional limitation(s) do not appear to be improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field. The displaying elements (or combination of elements) are well-understood, routine or conventional activity “Presenting offers and gathering statistics,” OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93 from MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). Thus, taken alone, the additional element does not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitation as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Therefore, claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Claim 2 is similar to claim 1 falls in “Mental Processes: Concepts performed in the human mind”, e.g., observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion, enumerated in the 2019 PEG. Claim 2 recites determining that the request cannot be satisfied using the access-restricted content or the request is a non-personal request: causing a search to be executed over a non-access-restricted database that is general to a plurality of users and causing one or more portions of the non-access-restricted content to be rendered at the client device. The additional element in the claim recites a client device and/or a client device display are recited at a high level of generality and add no more to the claimed invention than the components that perform an abstract idea. The additional element merely uses a client device as a tool to display data after a series of data gathering steps. The displaying and data gathering steps are insignificant extra-solution activity, thus, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional limitation(s) do not appear to be improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field. The displaying elements (or combination of elements) are well-understood, routine or conventional activity “Presenting offers and gathering statistics,” OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93 from MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). Thus, taken alone, the additional element does not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitation as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Therefore, claim 2 is not patent eligible.
Claims 3 and 5 recite in response to determining that the request cannot be satisfied using the access-restricted content or the non-access-restricted content: causing a recommendation to initate an outgoing electronic communication to be rendered at the client device. Claims 3 and 5 are similar to claim 1 fall in “Mental Processes: Concepts performed in the human mind”, e.g., observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion, enumerated in the 2019 PEG. The additional element in the claim recites a client device and/or a client device display are recited at a high level of generality and add no more to the claimed invention than the components that perform an abstract idea. The additional element merely uses a client device as a tool to display communication data after a series of data gathering steps. The displaying and data gathering steps are insignificant extra-solution activity, thus, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional limitation(s) do not appear to be improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field. The displaying elements (or combination of elements) are well-understood, routine or conventional activity “Presenting offers and gathering statistics,” OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93 from MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). Thus, taken alone, the additional element does not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitation as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Therefore, claims 3 and 5 are ineligible subject under 35 USC 101.
Claims 9-11 further recite in response to determining that the request reference a personal entity that is associated with the user and obtaining one or more portions of the access-restricted content from the access-restricted database. Claims 9-11 are similar to claim 1 fall in “Mental Processes: Concepts performed in the human mind”, e.g., observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion, enumerated in the 2019 PEG. The claims do not include additional elements other than displaying and gathering data using a client device. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, claims 9-11 are ineligible subject under 35 USC 101.
Claim 12 is similar to claim 1 falls in “Mental Processes: Concepts performed in the human mind”, e.g., observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion, enumerated in the 2019 PEG. Claim 12 recites determining that the request can be satisfied using the access-restricted search over the access-restricted database that is personal to the user that provided the user input. Claim 12 does not include additional elements other than displaying and gathering data using a client device. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, claim 12 is ineligible subject under 35 USC 101.
Claim 13 recites a system comprises:
receiving user input […] of a user, the user input including a request […] (e.g., observing a user input including a request can be performed in the human mind);
determining, based on the request referencing a personal entity that is associated with the user, the request is a personal request (e.g., evaluating the request to determine whether is a personal request or a non-personal request can be performed in the human mind);
in response to determining that the request is a personal request: causing an access-restricted search to be executed over an access-restricted database that is specific to the user that provided the user input (e.g., searching a restricted data storage in response to determining that the request is directed to a personal request can be performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation and judgment);
determining, based on access-restricted content obtained in response to the access-restricted search over the access-restricted database that is personal to the user, whether the request can be satisfied using the access-restricted content and in response to determining that the request can be satisfied using the access restricted content (e.g., obtaining and rending personal data from the restricted data storage if the request can be satisfied by the restricted data storage constitutes a mental process as observation, evaluation, and judgement using pen and paper);
refraining from causing a non-access-restricted search to be executed over a non-access-restricted database that is general to a plurality of users (e.g., refrain a search over a non-access-restricted database constitutes a mental process as observation, evaluation, and judgement).
Claim 13 as it is recited falls within one of the groupings of abstract ideas [e.g., mental process] enumerated in the 2019 PEG. The recited concept can be performed in human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion. That is, other than reciting at least one processor and memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to receive user input directed to an automated assistant being accessible at a client device, nothing in the claim elements preclude the step from practically being performed in the mind. The additional element in the claim recites a client device and/or a client device display are recited at a high level of generality and add no more to the claimed invention than the components that perform an abstract idea. The additional element merely uses a client device as a tool to display data after a series of data gathering steps. The displaying and data gathering steps are insignificant extra-solution activity, thus, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional limitation(s) do not appear to be improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field. The displaying elements (or combination of elements) are well-understood, routine or conventional activity “Presenting offers and gathering statistics,” OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93 from MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). Thus, taken alone, the additional element does not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitation as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Therefore, claim 13 is not patent eligible.
Claim 14 is similar to claim 13 falls in “Mental Processes: Concepts performed in the human mind”, e.g., observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion, enumerated in the 2019 PEG. Claim 14 recites determining that the request cannot be satisfied using the access-restricted content or the request is a non-personal request: causing a search to be executed over a non-access-restricted database that is general to a plurality of users and causing one or more portions of the non-access-restricted content to be rendered at the client device. The additional element in the claim recites a client device and/or a client device display are recited at a high level of generality and add no more to the claimed invention than the components that perform an abstract idea. The additional element merely uses a client device as a tool to display data after a series of data gathering steps. The displaying and data gathering steps are insignificant extra-solution activity, thus, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional limitation(s) do not appear to be improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field. The displaying elements (or combination of elements) are well-understood, routine or conventional activity “Presenting offers and gathering statistics,” OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93 from MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). Thus, taken alone, the additional element does not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitation as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Therefore, claim 14 is not patent eligible.
Claim 15 recites in response to determining that the request cannot be satisfied using the access-restricted content: causing a recommendation to initate an outgoing electronic communication to be rendered at the client device. Claim 15 is similar to claim 13 falls in “Mental Processes: Concepts performed in the human mind”, e.g., observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion, enumerated in the 2019 PEG. The additional element in the claim recites a client device and/or a client device display are recited at a high level of generality and add no more to the claimed invention than the components that perform an abstract idea. The additional element merely uses a client device as a tool to display communication data after a series of data gathering steps. The displaying and data gathering steps are insignificant extra-solution activity, thus, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional limitation(s) do not appear to be improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field. The displaying elements (or combination of elements) are well-understood, routine or conventional activity “Presenting offers and gathering statistics,” OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93 from MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). Thus, taken alone, the additional element does not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitation as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Therefore, claim 15 is ineligible subject under 35 USC 101.
Claims 18 and 19 recite in response to determining that the request reference a personal entity that is associated with the user and obtaining one or more portions of the access-restricted content from the access-restricted database. Claims 18 and 19 are similar to claim 13 falls in “Mental Processes: Concepts performed in the human mind”, e.g., observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion, enumerated in the 2019 PEG. The claims do not include additional elements other than displaying and gathering data using a client device. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, claims 18 and 19 are ineligible subject under 35 USC 101.
Claim 20 recites a non-transitory computer readable storage medium comprises:
receiving user input […] of a user, the user input including a request […] (e.g., observing a user input including a request can be performed in the human mind);
determining, based on the request referencing a personal entity that is associated with the user, the request is a personal request (e.g., evaluating the request to determine whether is a personal request or a non-personal request can be performed in the human mind);
in response to determining that the request is a personal request: causing an access-restricted search to be executed over an access-restricted database that is specific to the user that provided the user input (e.g., searching a restricted data storage in response to determining that the request is directed to a personal request can be performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation and judgment);
determining, based on access-restricted content obtained in response to the access-restricted search over the access-restricted database that is personal to the user, whether the request can be satisfied using the access-restricted content and in response to determining that the request can be satisfied using the access restricted content (e.g., obtaining and rending personal data from the restricted data storage if the request can be satisfied by the restricted data storage constitutes a mental process as observation, evaluation, and judgement using pen and paper);
refraining from causing a non-access-restricted search to be executed over a non-access-restricted database that is general to a plurality of users (e.g., refrain a search over a non-access-restricted database constitutes a mental process as observation, evaluation, and judgement).
Claim 20 as it is recited falls within one of the groupings of abstract ideas [e.g., mental process] enumerated in the 2019 PEG. The recited concept can be performed in human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion. That is, other than reciting at least one processor and memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to receive user input directed to an automated assistant being accessible at a client device, nothing in the claim elements preclude the step from practically being performed in the mind. The additional element in the claim recites a client device and/or a client device display are recited at a high level of generality and add no more to the claimed invention than the components that perform an abstract idea. The additional element merely uses a client device as a tool to display data after a series of data gathering steps. The displaying and data gathering steps are insignificant extra-solution activity, thus, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional limitation(s) do not appear to be improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field. The displaying elements (or combination of elements) are well-understood, routine or conventional activity “Presenting offers and gathering statistics,” OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93 from MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). Thus, taken alone, the additional element does not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitation as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Therefore, claim 20 is not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-6, 11-16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maier (US 2013/0198857 A1) and in view of Wagner (US 2008/0162347 A1) and further in view of Sharifi (US 2023/0025709 A1).
Referring to claims 1, 13 and 20, Mainer discloses a method implemented by one or more processors (See para. [0047], a computing system includes one or more processor(s) and memory elements), the method comprising:
receiving user input at a client device of a user (See para. [0029] and Figure 1, receiving a request for data from a user), the user input including a request directed to an […software application] (See para. [0029], and Figure 1, the request is directed to an instance of a software application), and the [… software application] being accessible at a client device of the user (See para. [0029] and Figure 1, receiving the request for data via an instance of the software application);
determining, based on processing the request, whether the request is a personal
request or a non-personal request (See para. [0029], para. [0030] and Figure 1, determining whether the request is directed to restricted-access data [e.g., local federal database] or a non-restricted-access data [e.g., centralized database from a global application server], note in para. [0014], the restricted-access data is privacy protected data [e.g. personal data] such as email address, data of birth or a local address); and
in response to determining that the request is a personal request: causing an access-restricted search to be executed over an access-restricted database that is specific to the user that provided the user input (See para. [0029]-para. [0031] and Figure 1, determining that the request is directed to locally restricted-access data, flow proceeds from block 106 via block 110 to block 124, the request is assigned to a respective local federated database, and the request is processed at the local federal database);
determining, based on access-restricted content obtained responsive to the
access-restricted search over the access-restricted database that is personal to the user, whether the request can be satisfied using the access-restricted content (See para. [0011], para. [0029]-para. [0031] and Figure 1, determining the request can be fulfilled by the local federal database, a global central database or a combination of both [e.g., matching request to a second set of entities “restricted access data”] and in response to determining that the request can be satisfied using the access-restricted content: causing one or more portions of the access-restricted content to be rendered at the client device (See para. [0031] and Figure 1, If the local instance of the software application has been authorized to access locally restricted-access data, the request is assigned to at least one local system having dedicated a local application server in block 124. The local application server is dedicated to a respective local federated database. Thus, the request is routed to the local federated database in block 126. Then the request is processed at the local federated database in block 128, where the processing been performed using data stored persistently in at least one local system and a centralized database. In block 130 a federated view of process data is provided by the local federated database is rendered).
Maier does not explicitly disclose determining based on the request referencing a personal entity that is associated with a user, the request is a personal request and refraining from causing a non-access-restricted search to be executed over a non-access-restricted database that is general to a plurality of users.
Wagner discloses determining based on the request referencing a personal entity that is associated with the user, the request is a personal request and refraining from causing a non-access-restricted search to be executed over a non-access-restricted database that is general to a plurality of users (See para. [0040] and para. [0041], determining based on the content of a request [e.g., determining the request is a search request or an AD request], and determining whether the search request is directed to public or private information, and when the search request requires private information /restricted information, the system searches the registrant database for responsive records from the restricted data for the vendors identified by the query, note the private information can be sensitive information stored with a vendor).
It would have been obvious to modify Maier’s request routing mechanism with Wagner’s determination of whether a request is directed to public or restricted information because both references address efficiently directing requests to the appropriate data source while maintaining access control over restricted information.
Maier in view of Wagner does not explicitly the software application which processed the user request is an automated assistant, the automated assistant being accessible at a client device of the user.
Sharifi discloses an automated assistant and the automated assistant being accessible at a client device of the user (See para. [0033], para. [0041] and Figure 2, the system invokes an automated assistant to handle a request of the user, for example, the user 101 submits a query of “play that on streaming service” and initially invoked automated assistant).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the computer art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the software application of Maier to include an automated assistant to service request, as taught by Sharifi. Skilled artisan would have been motivated to receive spoken and/or typed input from the user and provide audible and/or graphical responses (See Sharifi, para. [0002]). In addition, all of the references (Wagner, Sharifi and Maier) teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, such as routing user requests to appropriate services. This close relation between all references highly suggests an expectation of success.
As to claims 2 and 14, Mainer discloses in response to determining that the request cannot be satisfied using the access-restricted content (See para. [0033] and para. [0034], determining that the user request cannot fulfilled using the data obtained from the local federated database since the user is not authorized to access attribute of objects stored in the local federated database): causing a non-access-restricted search to be executed over the non-access-restricted database that is general to a plurality of users, the plurality of users including the user and additional users (See para. [0034], searching attributes of corresponding objects over a non-access-restricted [e.g., a global central database]);
determining, based on non-access-restricted content obtained responsive to the
search over the non-access-restricted database that is general to the plurality of users,
whether the request can be satisfied using the non-access-restricted content; and
in response to determining that the request can be satisfied using the non-
access-restricted content: causing one or more portions of the non-access-restricted content to be rendered at the client device (See para. [0034], in response to the user request, accessing attributes of the corresponding objects from a global table in the centralized database).
As to claims 3 and 15, Maier discloses in response to determining that the request cannot be satisfied using the non-access-restricted content: causing a recommendation to initiate an outgoing electronic communication to be rendered at the client device (See para. [0042] and para. [0043] causing a search to respective application server comprises a predefined configuration of a certain processing of a data request),
As to claims 4 and 16, Maier does not explicitly disclose wherein the outgoing electronic communication is one of: an automated telephone call that is initiated and conducted by the automated assistant and on behalf of the user, or an automated message that is generated and sent by the automated assistant and on behalf of the user.
Sharifi discloses wherein the outgoing electronic communication is one of: an automated telephone call that is initiated and conducted by the automated assistant and on behalf of the user, or an automated message that is generated and sent by the automated assistant and on behalf of the user (See para. [0012], an initially invoked automated assistant may receive a request related to a calendar application that it does not have access to and can broadcast a message to other automated assistants that inquire as to whether the request can be handled by a different automated assistant. In response, an automated assistant that can handle the request can affirmatively respond, thus informing the initially invoked automated assistant that the request can be handled by that automated assistant).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the computer art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the outgoing electronic communication of Maier to include an automated message that is generated and sent by the automated assistant and on behalf of the user, as taught by Sharifi. Skilled artisan would have been motivated to reduce latency when generating a response (See Sharifi, para. [0012]). In addition, all of the references (Wagner, Sharifi and Maier) teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, such as routing user requests to appropriate services. This close relation between all of the references highly suggests an expectation of success.
As to claim 5, Maier discloses in response to determining that the request cannot be satisfied using the access-restricted content (See para. [0033] and para. [0034], determining that the user request cannot be fulfilled using the data obtained from the local federated database since the user is not authorized to access attribute of objects stored in the local federated database): causing a recommendation to initiate an outgoing electronic communication to be rendered at the client device (See para. [0042] and para. [0043] causing a search to respective application server comprises a predefined configuration of a certain processing of a data request),
As to claim 6, Sharifi discloses wherein the outgoing electronic communication is one of: an automated telephone call that is initiated and conducted by the automated assistant and on behalf of the user, or an automated message that is generated and sent by the automated
assistant and on behalf of the user (See para. [0012], an initially invoked automated assistant may receive a request related to a calendar application that it does not have access to and can broadcast a message to other automated assistants that inquire as to whether the request can be handled by a different automated assistant. In response, an automated assistant that can handle the request can affirmatively respond, thus informing the initially invoked automated assistant that the request can be handled by that automated assistant).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the computer art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the outgoing electronic communication of Maier to include an automated message that is generated and sent by the automated assistant and on behalf of the user, as taught by Sharifi. Skilled artisan would have been motivated to reduce latency when generating a response (See Sharifi, para. [0012]). In addition, all of the references (Wagne, Sharifi and Maier) teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, such as routing user requests to appropriate services. This close relation between all the references highly suggests an expectation of success.
As to claim 11, Maier discloses wherein causing the access-restricted search to be executed over the access-restricted database that is specific to the user that provided the user input comprises: generating, based on the personal entity that is referenced in the request, a personal search query; and executing, over the access-restricted database, the personal search query to obtain the one or more portions of the access-restricted content (See para. [0035] and Figure 3, a federated view 306 in a local federated database 300. The view of FIG. 3 may be generated by retrieving locally-restricted-access data from a local table 310 of a local system 300. Primary keys 312a (CLIENT and ADDRNUM) of a global table 308 (ADRC) of a centralized database 302 are matched with primary keys 312b (CLIENT and ADDRUM) of local table 310 (LOCAL.ADRC). The primary keys 312a and 312b, after a generation of a set union, are the base for the primary keys 312c in the federated view 306 (ADRC) in the federated database 300. The primary keys 312a and 312b as well as 312c correspond to objects, to which attributes 314a and 316a respectively, 314b as well as 314c and 316c are assigned in the global table 308, respectively in the local table 310 as well as in the federated view 306).
As to claim 12, Maier discloses wherein determining whether the request can be satisfied using the access-restricted content based on the access-restricted content obtained responsive to the access-restricted search over the access-restricted database that is personal to the user that provided the user input comprises: determining whether the one or more portions of the access-restricted content are responsive to the request; and determining, based on the one or more portions of the access-restricted content being responsive to the request, that the request can be satisfied using the access-restricted content (See para. [0011], para. [0029]-para. [0031] and Figure 1, determining the request can be fulfilled by the local federal database, a global central database or a combination of both [e.g., matching request to a second set of entities “restricted access data”], If the local instance of the software application has been authorized to access locally restricted-access data, the request is assigned to at least one local system having dedicated a local application server in block 124. The local application server is dedicated to a respective local federated database. Thus, the request is routed to the local federated database in block 126. Then the request is processed at the local federated database in block 128, where the processing been performed using data stored persistently in at least one local system and a centralized database. In block 130 a federated view of process data is provided by the local federated database is rendered).
Claims 10, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maier (US 2013/0198857 A1) and in view of Wagner (US 2008/0162347 A1) and Sharifi (US 2023/0025709 A1) and further in view of Casado (US 2020/0175292 A1).
As to claims 10 and 18, Maier does not explicitly wherein the personal entity that is associated with the user is one of: a family entity, a friend entity, or a co-worker entity.
Casado discloses wherein the personal entity that is associated with the user is
one of: a family entity, a friend entity, or a co-worker entity (See para. [0164] and para. [0167]), the personal entity can be relationship, occupation and or other entities representing persons).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the computer art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the personal entity of Maier to include a family entity, a friend entity, or a co-worker entity, as taught by Casado. Skilled artisan would have been motivated to facilitate human-to-computer dialogs between use (See Casado, para. [0006]). In addition, all of the references (Wagner, Casado, Sharifi and Maier) teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, such as routing user requests to appropriate services. This close relation between all the references highly suggests an expectation of success.
As to claim 19, Maier discloses wherein the instructions to cause the access-restricted search to be executed over the access-restricted database that is specific to the user that provided the user input comprise instructions to: generate, based on the personal entity that is referenced in the request, a personal search query; execute, over the access-restricted database, the personal search query to obtain the one or more portions of the access-restricted content (See para. [0035] and Figure 3, a federated view 306 in a local federated database 300. The view of FIG. 3 may be generated by retrieving locally-restricted-access data from a local table 310 of a local system 300. Primary keys 312a (CLIENT and ADDRNUM) of a global table 308 (ADRC) of a centralized database 302 are matched with primary keys 312b (CLIENT and ADDRUM) of local table 310 (LOCAL.ADRC). The primary keys 312a and 312b, after a generation of a set union, are the base for the primary keys 312c in the federated view 306 (ADRC) in the federated database 300. The primary keys 312a and 312b as well as 312c correspond to objects, to which attributes 314a and 316a respectively, 314b as well as 314c and 316c are assigned in the global table 308, respectively in the local table 310 as well as in the federated view 306); and wherein the instructions to determine whether the request can be satisfied using the access-restricted content based on the access-restricted content obtained responsive to the access-restricted search over the access-restricted database that is personal to the user that provided the user input comprise instructions to: determine whether the one or more portions of the access-restricted content are responsive to the request; and determine, based on the one or more portions of the access-restricted content being responsive to the request, that the request can be satisfied using the access-restricted content (See para. [0011], para. [0029]-para. [0031] and Figure 1, determining the request can be fulfilled by the local federal database, a global central database or a combination of both [e.g., matching request to a second set of entities “restricted access data”], If the local instance of the software application has been authorized to access locally restricted-access data, the request is assigned to at least one local system having dedicated a local application server in block 124. The local application server is dedicated to a respective local federated database. Thus, the request is routed to the local federated database in block 126. Then the request is processed at the local federated database in block 128, where the processing been performed using data stored persistently in at least one local system and a centralized database. In block 130 a federated view of process data is provided by the local federated database is rendered).
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 YUK TING CHOI whose telephone number is (571)270-1637. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-6pm.
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, AMY NG can be reached at 5712701698. 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.
/YUK TING CHOI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2164
Prosecution Insights