Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
2. Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
3. This office action is in response to the REM filed 02/05/2026.
4. Claims 1, 10 and 19 are independent claims.
5. The office action is made Final.
Examiner Note
6. The Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the Applicant(s). Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the Applicant fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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 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.
8. 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) A patent may not be obtained through the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
9. Claims 1-4, 6-13 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being unpatentable over Stovezky et al (US 11568146 B2) hereinafter as Stovezky in view of Baldwin (US 20150134456 A1) hereinafter as Baldwin.
10. Regarding claim 1, Stovezky teaches a method implemented by one or more processors, the method comprising:
determining that a location-based automated assistant is available to a user device (col 1, lines 50-67, “the location-based biasing modes available for a client device of a user at a given location of the client device include at least a first location-based biasing mode and a second location-based biasing mode.”, col 6, lines 43-60, “The automated assistant 108 (a location-based automated assistant), with prior permission from the user 102”, col 7, lines 19-41, “the automated assistant 108 (a location-based automated assistant) can use voice identification, with prior permission from the user 102, in order to determine that the user 102 is the one who is interacting with the automated assistant 108.”, col 16, lines 43-61, “the geographic characteristic engine 216 can generate that data indicates, with prior permission from the user, whether the user is navigating toward or away from an area in which they reside, such as their home city, town, and/or country.”),
wherein the location-based automated assistant is available to the user device via a particular network and based on the user device and the location-based automated assistant both being connected to the particular network (Figs 1 & 2, col 6, lines 43-60, col 14, lines 18-33, “The server device can host the automated assistant 204 (the location-based automated assistant), and/or computing device 202 can transmit inputs received at one or more assistant interfaces 220 to the server device.”, Fig 2, “The computing device 202 and/or other third party client devices can be in communication with a server device over a network, such as the internet.”);
determining that a user of the user device has authorized pairing of the location-based automated assistant to the user device (col 6, lines 43-60, “The automated assistant 108, with prior permission from the user 102”, col 7, lines 19-41, “the automated assistant 108 can use voice identification, with prior permission from the user 102, in order to determine that the user 102 is the one who is interacting with the automated assistant 108.”, col 16, lines 43-61, “the geographic characteristic engine 216 can generate that data indicates, with prior permission from the user, whether the user is navigating toward or away from an area in which they reside, such as their home city, town, and/or country.”);
pairing, responsive to determining that the user device has authorized pairing of the location-based automated assistant to the user device, the location-based automated assistant to the user device, wherein pairing the location-based automated assistant to the user device comprises providing the location-based automated assistant access to the user device via the particular network (col 6, lines 43-61, “FIG. 1A, FIG. 1B, and FIG. 1C illustrate a view 100, a view 120, and a view 150, respectively, of a user 102 interacting with an automated assistant that operates according to one or more location-based biasing modes. Specifically, FIG. 1A illustrates a view 100 of the user 102 interacting with an automated assistant 108 that is accessible via a computing device 104 that is located within a home of the user 102.”);
receiving, at the user device, a query from the user, wherein the query includes a request (col 6, lines 43-61, “FIG. 1A, FIG. 1B, and FIG. 1C illustrate a query includes a request (a spoken utterance));
determining, based on content of the query, that the request is directed towards the location-based automated assistant (col 21, lines 38-58, “a spoken utterance that is directed to the automated assistant.”, col 23, lines 43-60, “The responsive output can be rendered by the computing device and/or the automated assistant, to which the spoken utterance was directed.”);
providing, in response to determining that the request is directed towards the location-based automated assistant, the request to the location-based automated assistant (col 6, lines 43-61, “FIG. 1A, FIG. 1B, and FIG. 1C illustrate a query includes a request (a spoken utterance), and a response to the request”, col 21, lines 38-58, “a spoken utterance that is directed to the automated assistant.”, col 23, lines 43-60, “The responsive output can be rendered by the computing device and/or the automated assistant, to which the spoken utterance was directed.”);
receiving, at the user device and from the location-based assistant, a response to the request (col 6, lines 43-61, “FIG. 1A, FIG. 1B, and FIG. 1C illustrate a query includes a request (a spoken utterance), and a response to the request from automated assistant”), wherein the response to the request is generated, by the location-based automated assistant, based on user information accessed by the location-based automated assistant (col 5, lines 39-60, “providing content that is prioritized over other content for rendering to the user when they are near a location of interest within an area.”, col 8, lines 14-30, “The second geographic characteristic data 142 can optionally indicate, with prior permission from the user 102, that the user 102 is at a particular location 130 that is adjacent to a public transit station 132 within the area 122 (user information accessed by the location-based automated assistant).”, col 12, lines 29-52, “When the user 102 is located at the location of interest 124, the automated assistant 108 can bias the processing of inputs and/or outputs according to the location of the user 102 and the first location-based biasing mode (user information accessed by the location-based automated assistant).”, col 25, lines 32-51, “collect personal information about users…a user's geographic location may be generalized where geographic location information is obtained (such as to a city, ZIP code, or state level),”),
Stovezky didn’t specifically teaches determining a trust measure for the location based automated assistant; providing, based on the trust measure for the location-based automated assistant, the location-based automated assistant with access to user information.
However, Baldwin explicitly teaches determining a trust measure for the location based automated assistant; providing, based on the trust measure for the location-based automated assistant, the location-based automated assistant with access to user information (Fig 1, [0023], “the digital assistant 150 (the user assistant input device) can interact with one or more other digital assistants (e.g., digital assistant 152) (the location based automated assistant). These other digital assistants can be associated with other users both nearby and/or at remote locations, with locations such as homes, restaurants, retail locations, and so forth.”, [0031], “the first communication device (the user assistant input device) can determine a first level of trust to be applied to the second digital assistant (the location based automated assistant). The first level of trust can be determined based on a number of factors, including based on a prior communication exchange between the first digital assistant and the second digital assistant. the first and second levels of trust control information sharing between the first and second digital assistants, such as restricting the sharing of certain information… the second communication device can be associated with an entity, such as a store, a restaurant, and so forth”, [0045], “the server 430 can monitor interaction between digital assistants to determine levels of trust being employed by the digital assistants. In this example, a notice indicating the levels of trust can be provided to one or all of the digital assistants that are interactive with each other.”, [0049], [0063], [0065]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate the concept of the user information shared with the location-based automated assistant is shared based on a trust measure associated with the location-based automated assistant suggested in Baldwin’s system into Stovezky’s and by incorporating Baldwin into Stovezky because both systems are related generally to intelligent automated assistants would adjusting a digital assistant persona (Baldwin).
11. Regarding claim 2, Stovezky and Baldwin teach the invention as claimed in claim 1 above and Stovezky further teaches wherein determining that the user has authorized pairing of the location-based automated assistant to the user device is based on determining that the user has previously been present at a location of the location-based automated assistant (col 2, lines 55-66, “determining the client device is in the location and the contextual condition(s) are present can cause the automated assistant to automatically transition to the second location-based biasing mode for the client device. ”, col 5, lines 14-18, “when the user has visited a particular area and/or a particular location of interest, such as a landmark, data that is used to render a responsive output can be processed according to a particular location-based biasing mode.”, col 22, lines 39-60, “whether the user has ever visited the location of interest before, and/or any other property that can describe the context of the user relative to a location of interest.”). Also, Napolitano teaches the limitation at ([0136], [0149], [0366], “User data including contacts, preferences, location, favorite media, and the like can be used to interpret voice commands and facilitate user interaction with the various devices discussed herein. this gathered data can include personal information data that uniquely identifies or can be used to contact or locate a specific person. Such personal information data can include demographic data, location-based data, telephone numbers, email addresses, home addresses, or any other identifying information.”).
12. Regarding claim 3, Stovezky and Baldwin teach the invention as claimed in claim 1 above and Stovezky further teaches wherein determining that the user has authorized pairing of the location-based automated assistant with the user device is based on identifying, from an application of the user device, authorization information (col 6, lines 43-60, “FIG. 1A illustrates a view 100 of the user 102 interacting with an automated assistant 108 that is accessible via a computing device 104 that is located within a home of the user 102.”, col 7, lines 18-41, “the automated assistant 108 can access contextual data characterizing content being rendered at the television 110. Based on the user 102 being in their home, the automated assistant 108 can bypass operating according to a location-based biasing mode, and provide a responsive output to the user 102 based on the contextual data and the spoken utterance.”).
13. Regarding claim 4, Stovezky and Baldwin teach the invention as claimed in claim 3 above and Stovezky further teaches wherein the application is a calendar application (col 5, lines 11-12, “This variety of different data can be associated with the user (e.g., calendar data, application data, message data, etc.), the spoken utterance, a given context, and/or any other related information.”, col 12, lines 29-52, “The automated assistant 108 can bias the processing according to a greater corpus of documents and/or data, such as application data accessible via the computing device 140 (e.g., calendar data, messaging data, area-related location data, etc.).”).
14. Regarding claim 6, Stovezky and Baldwin teach the invention as claimed in claim 1 above and Baldwin further teaches wherein the user information shared with the location-based automated assistant includes one or more user automated assistant preferences ([0011], [0016], [0023]).
15. Regarding claim 7, Stovezky and Baldwin teach the invention as claimed in claim 1 above and Baldwin further teaches wherein the trust measure indicates particular information to provide to the location-based automated assistant as user information, and wherein the user information is selected based on the user information conforming to the particular information indicated by the trust measure (Fig 1, [0023], “the digital assistant 150 (the user assistant input device) can interact with one or more other digital assistants (e.g., digital assistant 152) (the location based automated assistant). These other digital assistants can be associated with other users both nearby and/or at remote locations, with locations such as homes, restaurants, retail locations, and so forth.”, [0031], “the first communication device (the user assistant input device) can determine a first level of trust to be applied to the second digital assistant (the location based automated assistant). The first level of trust can be determined based on a number of factors, including based on a prior communication exchange between the first digital assistant and the second digital assistant. the first and second levels of trust control information sharing between the first and second digital assistants, such as restricting the sharing of certain information… the second communication device can be associated with an entity, such as a store, a restaurant, and so forth”, [0045], “the server 430 can monitor interaction between digital assistants to determine levels of trust being employed by the digital assistants. In this example, a notice indicating the levels of trust can be provided to one or all of the digital assistants that are interactive with each other.”, [0049], [0063], [0065]).
16. Regarding claim 8, Stovezky and Baldwin teach the invention as claimed in claim 1 above and Stovezky further teaches wherein the user information includes application information that is from an application of the user device, and further comprising: providing, along with the request, the application information to the location-based automated assistant (col 5, lines 11-12, “This variety of different data can be associated with the user (e.g., calendar data, application data, message data, etc.), the spoken utterance, a given context, and/or any other related information.”, col 6, lines 43-61, col 12, lines 29-52, “The automated assistant 108 can bias the processing according to a greater corpus of documents and/or data, such as application data accessible via the computing device 140 (e.g., calendar data, messaging data, area-related location data, etc.).”).
17. Regarding claim 9, Stovezky and Baldwin teach the invention as claimed in claim 8 above and Stovezky further teaches wherein the application is a calendar application (col 5, lines 11-12, “This variety of different data can be associated with the user (e.g., calendar data, application data, message data, etc.), the spoken utterance, a given context, and/or any other related information.”, col 12, lines 29-52, “The automated assistant 108 can bias the processing according to a greater corpus of documents and/or data, such as application data accessible via the computing device 140 (e.g., calendar data, messaging data, area-related location data, etc.).”).
18. Regarding claims 10-13, 15-18, those claims recite a system performs the method of claims 1-4, 6-9 respectively and are rejected under the same rationale.
19. Regarding claims 19 and 20, those claims recite a non-transitory computer readable storage medium configured to store instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause one or more of the processors to perform the method of claims 1 and 2 respectively and are rejected under the same rationale.
20. Claims 5 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being unpatentable over Stovezky et al (US 11568146 B2) in view of Baldwin (US 20150134456 A1) as claimed in claim 3 above and further in view of Nadig et al (US 20230120966 A1).
21. Regarding claim 5, Stovezky and Baldwin teach the invention as claimed in claim 3 above. Stovezky and Baldwin did not specifically teach wherein the authorization information includes reservation information related to the location.
However, Nadig teaches wherein the authorization information includes reservation information related to the location ([0057], “book a trip”, [0109], “ride booking”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate the concept of teachings suggested in Nadig’s system into Stovezky and Baldwin combined system and by incorporating Nadig into Stovezky and Baldwin combined system because all systems are related generally to intelligent automated assistants would determine privacy controls for output including sensitive data (Nadig).
22. Regarding claim 14, this claim recites a system performs the method of claim 5 and is rejected under the same rationale.
Respond to Amendments and Arguments
23. In the remarks received 05/26/2026, the Applicant's attorney respectfully submits that the cited portions of Nadig fail to render obvious the above features of independent claim 1, as well as similar features of independent claims 10 and 19, at least as amended. Specifically, Nadig fails to teaches “"determining a trust measure for the location based automated assistant; providing, based on the trust measure for the location-based automated assistant, the location-based automated assistant with access to user information;"
Examiner presents the following responses to Applicant’s arguments:
- With respect to applicant’s arguments, Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) under 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made by Stovezky et al (US 11568146 B2) in view of Baldwin (US 20150134456 A1).
Specifically, Baldwin explicitly teaches determining a trust measure for the location based automated assistant; providing, based on the trust measure for the location-based automated assistant, the location-based automated assistant with access to user information (Fig 1, [0023], “the digital assistant 150 (the user assistant input device) can interact with one or more other digital assistants (e.g., digital assistant 152) (the location based automated assistant). These other digital assistants can be associated with other users both nearby and/or at remote locations, with locations such as homes, restaurants, retail locations, and so forth.”, [0031], “the first communication device (the user assistant input device) can determine a first level of trust to be applied to the second digital assistant (the location based automated assistant). The first level of trust can be determined based on a number of factors, including based on a prior communication exchange between the first digital assistant and the second digital assistant. the first and second levels of trust control information sharing between the first and second digital assistants, such as restricting the sharing of certain information… the second communication device can be associated with an entity, such as a store, a restaurant, and so forth”, [0045], “the server 430 can monitor interaction between digital assistants to determine levels of trust being employed by the digital assistants. In this example, a notice indicating the levels of trust can be provided to one or all of the digital assistants that are interactive with each other.”, [0049], [0063], [0065]).
CONCLUSION
The Applicant’s amendment necessitated a new ground of rejection. Therefore, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicants are reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 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 HICHAM SKHOUN whose telephone number is (571)272-9466. The examiner can normally be reached Normal schedule: Mon-Fri 10am-6:30pm.
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, 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.
/HICHAM SKHOUN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2164
Prosecution Insights