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 .
Response to Argument
Applicant’s arguments in the Remarks, filed on 7/2/26 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of new grounds of rejections.
Double Patenting
Claims 2-9 of this application is patentably indistinct from claims 1-7 of Application No. 19/529,059. Pursuant to 37 CFR 1.78(f), when two or more applications filed by the same applicant or assignee contain patentably indistinct claims, elimination of such claims from all but one application may be required in the absence of good and sufficient reason for their retention during pendency in more than one application. Applicant is required to either cancel the patentably indistinct claims from all but one application or maintain a clear line of demarcation between the applications. See MPEP § 822.
Instant application
2. A method of operating a client system, the method comprising: receiving, from a microphone of the client system, audio information comprising a user request; determining, based at least in part on the audio information and the user request, a task to be performed and an activation condition associated with the task, wherein the user request does not specify the activation condition; capturing visual information using a camera disposed on the client system; determining that the activation condition has been met based at least in part on the visual information; and in response to determining that the activation condition has been met, performing the task, wherein performing the task comprises presenting, with the client system, information to a user via at least one of an audio modality and/or a visual modality.
3. The method of claim 2, wherein performing the task comprises displaying text on a head-mounted display of the client system.
4. The method of claim 2, wherein performing the task comprises providing an audio output from a speaker of the client system.
5. The method of claim 2, wherein an assistant application executing on the client system determines the task to be performed.
6. The method of claim 5, wherein the task to be performed is determined based at least in part on information received from an assistant system via a network.
7. The method of claim 2, wherein an assistant application executing on the client system determines that the activation condition has been met.
8. The method of claim 7, wherein the activation condition is determined to have been met based at least in part on information received from an assistant system via a network.
9. The method of claim 2, wherein the audio information is processed by an assistant system to determine the user request, and the assistant system is communicatively coupled via a network with an assistant application executing on the client system.
Application 19529059
1. A method of operating a client system, the method comprising: receiving, from a microphone of the client system, audio information comprising a user request; determining, based at least in part on the audio information and the user request, a task to be performed and an activation condition associated with the task; capturing visual information using a camera disposed on the client system; determining that the activation condition has been met based at least in part on the visual information; and in response to determining that the activation condition has been met, performing the task, wherein performing the task comprises presenting, with the client system, information to a user via at least one of an audio modality and/or a visual modality.
2. The method of claim 1, wherein performing the task comprises displaying text on a head-mounted display of the client system.
3. The method of claim 1, wherein performing the task comprises providing an audio output from a speaker of the client system.
4. The method of claim 1, wherein an assistant application executing on the client system determines the task to be performed.
5. The method of claim 4, wherein the task to be performed is determined based at least in part on information received from an assistant system via a network.
6. The method of claim 1, wherein: an assistant application executing on the client system determines that the activation condition has been met; and the activation condition is determined to have been met based at least in part on information received from an assistant system via a network.
7. The method of claim 1, wherein the audio information is processed by an assistant system to determine the user request, and the assistant system is communicatively coupled via a network with an assistant application executing on the client system.
Claim 2-9 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7 of U.S. Patent Application 19529059 in view of Badr et al, U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/0338109. Claims 1-7 of Application 19529059 do not claim wherein the user request does not specify the activation condition. Badr teaches wherein the user request does not specify the activation condition ([7][47], e.g., “remember/remind me that this wine is excellent”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include Badr’s teaching because by doing so it would allow an automated assistant to automatically executes requested task based on image captured by the camera [2][7].
Except for the identified elements above, claims 1-7 of Application 19529059 contains every elements of claims 2-9 in the instant application and thus anticipate claims 2-9 of the instant application. Claims 2-9 of the instant application therefore are not patently distinct from the earlier claim and as such is unpatentable over obvious-type double patenting.
This is a provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejection.
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 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 2-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Badr et al, U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/0338109 (hereinafter Badr).
As per claim 2, Badr teaches the invention as claimed comprising:
receiving, from a microphone of the client system, audio information comprising a user request ([6][7][47][51]-[53], e.g., receiving a spoken request (e.g., “remember/remind me that this wine is excellent”) from a client device (e.g., smart glasses));
determining, based at least in part on the audio information and the user request, a task to be performed and an activation condition associated with the task, wherein the user request does not specify the activation condition ([7][47], e.g., determining, based on the request, a remind task to be performed and recognize same wine is on a shelf);
capturing visual information using a camera disposed on the client system ([7], e.g., capturing same wine on the shelf using the client device/smart glasses);
determining that the activation condition has been met based at least in part on the visual information ([7][46][47], e.g., recognizing the same wine based on capturing the image of the same wine on a shelf); and
in response to determining that the activation condition has been met, performing the task ([7][46][47], e.g., in response to recognizing the same wine has been met, perform the reminding),
wherein performing the task comprises presenting, with the client system, information to a user via at least one of an audio modality and/or a visual modality ([7][46][47], e.g., visually emphasizing the wine on the shelf).
As per claim 3, Badr teaches the invention as claimed in claim 2 above. Badr further teach wherein performing the task comprises displaying text on a head-mounted display of the client system [7].
As per claim 4, Badr teaches the invention as claimed in claim 2 above. Badr further teach wherein performing the task comprises providing an audio output from a speaker of the client system [6].
As per claim 5, Badr teaches the invention as claimed in claim 2 above. Badr further teach wherein an assistant application executing on the client system determines the task to be performed ([22]).
As per claim 6, Badr teaches the invention as claimed in claim 5 above. Badr further teach wherein the task to be performed is determined based at least in part on information received from an assistant system via a network ([22][26]).
As per claim 7, Badr teaches the invention as claimed in claim 2 above. Badr further teach wherein an assistant application executing on the client system determines that the activation condition has been met ([7]).
As per claim 8, Badr teaches the invention as claimed in claim 7 above. Badr further teach wherein the activation condition is determined to have been met based at least in part on information received from an assistant system via a network ([7][22][26]).
As per claim 9, Badr teaches the invention as claimed in claim 2 above. Badr further teach wherein the audio information is processed by an assistant system to determine the user request, and the assistant system is communicatively coupled via a network with an assistant application executing on the client system ([22][25][26]).
As per claims 10 and 18, they are rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 2 above. See Badr [25][28] and figure 1 for a client system comprising: a microphone; a camera; one or more processors; and at least one non-transitory computer-readable memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, causes the client system to perform operations of claim 2.
As per claim 11, it is rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 3 above.
As per claim 12, it is rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 4 above.
As per claims 13 and 20, they are rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 5 above.
As per claim 14, it is rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 6 above.
As per claim 15, it is rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 7 above.
As per claim 16, it is rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 8 above.
As per claims 17 and 21, they are rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 9 above.
As per claim 19, it is rejected for the same reason as set forth in claims 3 and 4 above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 Philip Lee whose telephone number is (571)272-3967. The examiner can normally be reached on 6a-3p M-F.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should
be directed to Philip Lee whose telephone number is (571)272-3967. The examiner can normally be
reached on 6a-3p M-F.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor,
Glenton Burgess can be reached on 571-272-3949. The fax phone number for the organization where this
application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application
Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained
from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available
through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair- direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic
Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer
Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR
CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/PHILIP C LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2454
Prosecution Insights