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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3-11, 13, 14, 16-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gruber et al., US 12,087,308 B2.
Per claim 1, Gruber et al. discloses a non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium comprising
instructions recorded thereon, wherein the instructions, when executed by at least one data processor of a system, cause the system to: detect a command input to launch an assistant application at a computing device, wherein the assistant application is configured to use an artificial intelligence (AI) system to generate content responsive to prompts input and based on content of an integrated application (col.27, lines 3-15) teaches different ways to launch the assistant application, for example, the audio voice command interview, text input interface, etc. );
in response to the command being detected, cause the computing device to: open the assistant application in a foreground of the computing device; and display a graphical user interface of the assistant application at the computing device, wherein the graphical user interface is configured to receive the prompts for the AI system and present generated content responsive to the prompt inputs (col.27, lines 56+, “Active Typed Input Elicitation” and col.32, lines 9+, “Active GUI-Based Input Elicitation” show that GUI is used as the both input and output from/to the assistant.);
cause the AI system to generate content responsive to a particular prompt input to the graphical user interface, wherein the particular prompt includes a criterion for particular content of a workspace of the integrated application, and wherein the generated content responsive to the particular prompt is based on the particular content of the workspace (col.33-38, presents the examples that use the contextual criterion such as user location, preference, etc to carryout tasks. The integrated application examples further shown in col.3, line 63 to col. 4, line 68, “control.. operations … such as dial a telephone number, sent a text message, set reminders, add events to a calenda, and like” shows the integrated applications. ); and
cause the computing device to present the generated content responsive to the particular prompt within the graphical user interface while the assistant application is running in the foreground of the computing device and the integrated application is running in the background of the computing device (col.161, lines 58-68, for example, shows automatically starting up a background application to dial a phone call.).
Per dependent claim 3, Gruber et al. disclose the non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium of claim 1, wherein the system is further caused to: in response to user input received at the graphical user interface of the assistant application: open the integrated application in the foreground of the computing device(Figs 44A-44C shows opening to the foreground to display the integrated applications, for example, “My Stuff”, “My Restaurants”);
transfer the generated content from the assistant application to the integrated application (col.29, line 60.);
and embed the generated content into the workspace of the integrated application (col.29, line 60, “Message ... save the identified event… add notes” shows the transferring and embedding the content in the displayed application.).
Per dependent claim 4, Gruber et al. discloses the non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium of claim 1, wherein the system is further caused to: cause the assistant application to save the generated content to the workspace without opening the integrated application in a foreground of the computing device (col.58, lines 20-44, explains the short term memory processing which does not require the application in the foreground, e.g., not require the Web browser in foreground for “stor[ing] the history of the dialog and user interactions … in … web browser” ).
Per dependent claim 5, Gruber et al. discloses the non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium of claim 1, wherein the computing device is caused to: retrieve the particular content from the integrated application; and present the particular content in the graphical user interface of the assistant application running in the foreground of the computing device (FIG.21 shows an example of presenting the assistant application and the integrated application in foreground to present information).
Per dependent claim 6, Gruber et al. shows the non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium of claim 1, wherein the system is further caused to, prior to the computing device being caused to present the generated content responsive to the particular prompt: cause the graphical user interface to present a control configured to enable selection from among multiple workspaces of the integrated application, wherein the assistant application is configured to generate content based on a selected workspace of the multiple workspaces; and detect selection of the workspace from among the multiple workspaces (FIGs 35-36, note that, e.g., FIG. 36 shows the ability to activate an email app using “Share via email” or map app using “Map It”, that will open the respective applications’ workspaces.).
Per dependent claim 7, Gruber et al. shows the non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium of claim 1, wherein
the system is further caused to, prior to the computing device being caused to present the generated content responsive to the particular prompt: cause the graphical user interface to present a switcher control configured to enable selection of a particular workspace from among multiple workspaces of the integrated application, wherein the assistant application is configured to generate content based only on the particular workspace of the multiple workspaces; and detect selection of the workspace as the particular workspace from among the multiple workspaces (FIG.12 shows the different workspaces that can be selected and the assistant using only the selected workspace to perform the actions.)
Per dependent claim 8, Gruber et al. shows the non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium of claim 1, wherein the system is further caused to, prior to the computing device being caused to present the generated content responsive to the particular prompt: cause the graphical user interface to present a control configured to enable selection of one or more workspaces from among multiple workspaces of the integrated application, wherein a scope of the assistant application to search content is limited to the one or more selected workspaces of the multiple workspaces, and wherein the one or more selected workspaces include the workspace (substantially as explained with respect to claim 7; see FIGs 12-21; col. 28, lines 25+).
Per dependent claim 9, Gruber et al. discloses the non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium of claim 1, wherein the system is further caused to, prior to the computing device being caused to present the generated content responsive to the particular prompt: restrict the assistant application from searching content of workspaces other than the workspace of the integrated application for generating content responsive to prompts into to the graphical user interface, wherein the workspace is preselected for the assistant application (FIG.12, the list “1202” shows “Tap of one these” for searching only the selected category content.
Per dependent claim 10, Gruber et al. discloses the non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium of claim 1, wherein the system is further caused to, prior to the computing device being caused to present the generated content responsive to the particular prompt: authorize the assistant application to access the integrated application based on a common criterion for each of the assistant application and the integrated application; and authorize the assistant application to search the workspace of the integrated application based on the common criterion for each of the assistant application, the integrated application, and the workspace (col., 3, lines 30-57, “the intelligent automated assistant can use the context of a phone call… text message … address book contact..”; “the assistant can control many operations and functions … such as to dial .. send a text .. set reminders… add events to a calendar, and the like”).
Per dependent claim 11, Gruber et al. discloses the non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium of claim 1, wherein the system is further caused to, prior to the computing device being caused to present the generated content responsive to the particular prompt: authorize the assistant application to access the integrated application based on a common electronic address set for each of the assistant application and the integrated application; and authorize a search function to search the workspace of the integrated application based on the electronic address set for each of the assistant application, the integrated application, and the workspace (col.3, line 42+, “the intelligent automated assistant takes into account which address book contact to use, which contact data to use, which telephone number to use for the contact..” shows determining and authorizing a specific application to search for the data to carry out the further operations.).
Per dependent claim 13, Gruber et al. the non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium of claim 1, wherein the criterion is indicative of: an attribute of a block in a page of the workspace (FIGs.13-21 shows the prompt page and the results workspace is implemented on a windows based space, thus, showing at least the position, size and color, etc. attributes.).
Claims 14, 16, 17 are for the method performed by the executed computer program steps in claims 1, 3, 4, respectively, and are similarly rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 18 and 20 are for the apparatus (e.g., a general-purpose programmable computer) performing the executed computer program steps in claims 1, 3, respectively, and are similarly rejected under the same rationale.
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.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 2, 15 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gruber et al. in view of Taylert et al., USPAT 11,960,514 B1.
Per dependent claim 2, Gruber et al. discloses the non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium of claim 1, wherein the system is further caused to, prior to the AI system being caused to generate content responsive to the particular prompt: search, while the integrated application runs in the background of the computing device, for the particular content of the workspace that satisfies the criterion (FIGs.19-21 show using the AI interface to provide the input commands and the internet application and other applications in the background carrying out the related tasks.); and
input the particular content of the workspace into an AI system, wherein the generated content responsive to the particular prompt is output from the AI based on the particular content of the workspace (FIG.21, e.g., shows the generated content being displayed in the workspace.)
However, Gruber et al. does not explicitly disclose that the artificial intelligent system for the input and output uses a large language model (LLM) AI system. For the missing feature, Taylert et al. teaches the conversation-based search and retrieval system where the LLM AI is used (col.17, lines 46-58). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the applicant’s invention to have incorporated the use of Taylert et al’s LLM AI system into Gruber et al, since Taylert et al. pointed out the use of LLM was well known and explained that “a large language model (LLM) … provide[s] a best possible answer for the agent to use during an interactive conversation.” (col.17, line 53).
Claims 15 is for the method performed by the executed computer program steps in claim 2 and is similarly rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 19 is for the apparatus (e.g., a general-purpose programmable computer) performing the executed computer program steps in claim 2 and is similarly rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gruber et al. in view of Examiner’s Official Notice.
Per dependent claim 12, Gruber et al. discloses the non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium of claim 1, wherein to detect the command to launch the assistant application at the computing device comprises causing the system to: detect input of a button to the computing device, wherein the keyboard shortcut is preset to cause the computing device to open the assistant application independent of whether the integrated application is running in the foreground or background of the computing device (col. 62, lines 1-9, “a dedicated button on a mobile device pressed, such as a “speech input button”; a button on a peripheral device attached to a computer or mobile device, such as a headset, telephone handset or base station, a GPS navigation system, consumer appliance, remote control, or any other device with a button that might be associated with invoking assistance”). However, Grubber et al. does not explicitly disclose that a keyboard shortcut is another way to invoke the assistant application. Nevertheless, Examiner takes an Official Notice that the use of a keyboard shortcut to invoke functions and applications was extremely well known in the art at the time of the effective filing of the application. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the application to have incorporated the well-known keyboard shortcut, since Gruber et al. taught that a computer is another embodiment that can implement the invention (col.62, line 3 “a button on a peripheral device attached to a computer”).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
* US-11843718-B2 2023-12-12 Baror; Yuval H04M3/42068 1/1
* US-11809483-B2 2023-11-07 Orr; Ryan M. G06F16/3329 1/1
* US-11803415-B2 2023-10-31 Dunn; Micheal G06F9/453 1/1
* US-11756532-B2 2023-09-12 Cronin; John G06F16/3329 704/9
* US-11714598-B2 2023-08-01 Jung; Wonheui G06N5/041 715/702
* US-11676220-B2 2023-06-13 Natarajan; Vivek H04L12/2816 707/771
* US-11671920-B2 2023-06-06 Freeman; Daniel G10L15/22 455/563
* US-11670289-B2 2023-06-06 Gruber; Thomas R. G06F40/205 704/235
* US-12688434-B1 2026-07-21 Tran; Bao G06N3/098 1/1
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Stephen Hong whose telephone number 571-272-4124.
The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 10AM-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, a supervisor, William Bashore can be reached on (571) 272-4088. 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.
/STEPHEN S HONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2178
Prosecution Insights