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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims Status
Claims 1, 3, 4, 8, 15 and 17 filed 05/07/2026 have been amended. Claims 1-20 are pending and have been rejected.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/20/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/07/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s representative asserts that Gershony fails to disclose or suggest the technical feature “interaction between the second user and the first digital assistant is executed in a conversation interface between the second user and the first digital assistant”. Furthermore, Gershony fails to disclose or suggest the features of “…displaying a conversation interface between the second user and the first digital assistant; and executing interaction between the first digital assistant and the second user in the conversation interface.” However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees as Gershony et al. (U.S. Publication 2017/0180276) in paragraphs 0073, 0075, 0111-0112 and figure 3, shows conversation between users and bot shown in a user interface. Messaging application being displayed. The second user interacts with the bot, as bot replies to second user messages through a messaging application (chat/conversation interface).
As it is Applicant's right to claim as broadly as possible their invention, it is also the Examiner's right to interpret the claim language as broadly as possible. It is the Examiner's position that the detailed functionality that allows for Applicant's invention to overcome the prior art used in the rejection, fails to differentiate in detail how these features are unique. It is clear that Applicant must be able to submit claim language to distinguish over the prior arts used in the above rejection sections that discloses distinctive features of Applicant's claimed invention. It is suggested that Applicant compare the original specification and claim language with the cited prior art used in the rejection section above or the remark section below to draw an amended claim set to further the prosecution.
Failure for Applicant to narrow the definition/scope of the claims and supply arguments commensurate in scope with the claims implies the Applicant's intent to broaden claimed invention.
Based on the rationale explained above, the Examiner disagrees with the prior arts being silent to the claimed embodiment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-11 & 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable Gershony et al. (U.S. Publication 2017/0180276), hereinafter “Gershony”.
As to claims 1 & 17, Gershony discloses a method and an electronic device for conversation interaction, comprising: at least one processing unit (Gershony, see fig. 2, processor); and at least one memory coupled to the at least one processing unit and storing instructions for execution by the at least one processing unit, the instructions (Gershony, see fig. 2, memory coupled to processor), when executed by the at least one processing unit, cause the electronic device to perform acts comprising: receiving a configuration operation from a first user, the configuration operation being configured to configure a first digital assistant to replace the first user to interact with a second user (Gershony, see [0111], user can press option to switch to a bot mode, which changes the user’s avatar to a bot that will reply to conversations); and in response to the configuration operation taking effect, displaying an interaction portal of the first digital assistant in an interface associated with the first user, so that the second user interact with the first digital assistant (Gershony, see [0073], graphical data from messaging application is displayed. See [0111-0112], second user interacts with the bot, as bot replies to second user messages through a messaging application), wherein interaction between the second user and the first digital assistant is executed in a conversation interface between the second user and the first digital assistant (Gershony, see [0075] and fig. 3, conversation between users and bot shown in a user interface. See [0073], graphical data from messaging application is displayed. See [0111-0112], second user interacts with the bot, as bot replies to second user messages through a messaging application); As to claims 2 & 18, Gershony discloses everything disclosed in claims 1 & 17, wherein receiving the configuration operation from the first user comprises receiving the configuration operation via at least one of: a conversation interface between the first user and the first digital assistant, a user personal homepage of the first user, or an assistant personal homepage of the first digital assistant (Gershony, see [0075] and fig. 3, user interface shows the messages can be communicated between a user and a bot).
As to claims 3 & 19, Gershony discloses everything disclosed in claims 2 & 18, wherein receiving the configuration operation via the conversation interface between the first user and the first digital assistant comprises: displaying a first message from the first digital assistant in the conversation interface between the first user and the first digital assistant, the first message being provided with a configuration control (Gershony, see [0075] and fig. 3, conversation between users and bot shown in a user interface. See [0099-0100], system provides a message with information, wherein a suggestion is generated for the user to take action); and receiving the configuration operation via the configuration control (Gershony, see fig. 4A, a suggestion can be generated for users to take an action by using a button).
As to claim 4, Gershony discloses everything disclosed in claim 3, wherein displaying the first message from the first digital assistant comprises: displaying a second message from the first digital assistant in the conversation interface between the first user and the first digital assistant, the second message being provided with a preset shortcut instruction (Gershony, see [0075] and fig. 3, conversation between users and bot shown in a user interface. See [0106] & fig. 4G, the user can select one of the options first suggested to the user, which triggers a second suggestion to be generated); and in response to the preset shortcut instruction being triggered, displaying the first message (Gershony, see [0106] & fig. 4G, conversation interface generated responsive to receiving the user selection, wherein the messaging application generates and displays certain restaurants open for lunch).
As to claim 5, Gershony discloses everything disclosed in claim 2, wherein receiving the configuration operation via the user personal homepage or the assistant personal homepage comprises: displaying, in the user personal homepage or the assistant personal homepage, a configuration portal for configuring the first digital assistant to replace the first user to interact with the second user (Gershony, see [0111], the messaging application can provide an option to a user to switch to a bot mode, which changes the user's avatar to a bot); displaying, in response to the configuration portal being triggered, a configuration interface for configuring the first digital assistant to replace the first user to interact with the second user (Gershony, see [0111], the messaging application can provide an option to a user to switch to a bot mode); and receiving the configuration operation in the configuration interface (Gershony, see [0111], providing an option to the user that switches to a bot).
As to claim 6, Gershony discloses everything disclosed in claim 5, wherein an example in which the first user is replaced by the first digital assistant for interaction is further presented in the configuration interface (Gershony, see [0111], the messaging application provide an option to a user to switch to a bot mode, which changes the user's avatar to a bot and automatically replies to conversations).
As to claims 7 & 20, Gershony discloses everything disclosed in claims 1 & 17, wherein displaying the interaction portal of the first digital assistant in the interface associated with the first user comprises displaying the interaction portal in at least one of: a conversation interface between the second user and the first user, or a personal homepage of the first user (Gershony, see [0104] and fig. 4E, conversation interface showing a conversation between multiple users).
As to claim 8, Gershony discloses everything disclosed in claim 1, further comprising: displaying, to the first user, information relating to the interaction between the first digital assistant and the second user (Gershony, see [0111] and 4D, the conversational rules help create a format that is easily understood by the chat bots for ease of communication, wherein the messaging application provide an option to a user to switch to a bot mode, which changes the user's avatar to a bot and automatically replies to conversations).
As to claim 9, Gershony discloses everything disclosed in claim 8, wherein displaying the information relating to the interaction between the first digital assistant and the second user comprises at least one of: displaying, in a conversation interface between the first user and the first digital assistant, a message from the first digital assistant, the message comprising a record of the interaction, displaying, in a conversation interface between the first user and the first digital assistant, a plurality of messages generated in the interaction in an aggregate form, or displaying, in a conversation interface between the first user and the second user, the plurality of messages generated in the interaction (Gershony, see [0104] and fig. 4E, conversation interface showing a conversation between multiple users).
As to claim 10, Gershony discloses everything disclosed in claim 1, further comprising: in response to the configuration operation taking effect, displaying, in a conversation interface between the first user and the first digital assistant, at least one of the following: text describing interaction of the first digital assistant in place of the first user, or an icon representing the interaction of the first digital assistant in place of the first user (Gershony, see [0104], the report can start with a summary on when the user discussed the topic and the other participants in the conversations).
As to claim 11, Gershony discloses everything disclosed in claim 1, wherein the configuration operation comprises: selecting a data source for use by the first digital assistant in interaction with the second user, or setting a guide phrase for displaying to the second user (Gershony, see [0110], machine learning is used in order to determine responses to users. See [0113-0114], suggested responses are based on sensor data, one or more preferences, a conversation history, or one or more recent activities performed by each of the other participants). As to claim 13, Gershony discloses a method for conversation interaction, comprising: displaying an interaction portal of a first digital assistant in an interface associated with a first user (Gershony, see [0075] and fig. 3, conversation between users and bot shown in an user interface); in response to receiving a triggering operation for the interaction portal from a second user, displaying a conversation interface between the second user and the first digital assistant (Gershony, see [0073], graphical data from messaging application is displayed. See [0111-0112], second user interacts with the bot, as bot replies to second user messages through a messaging application); and executing interaction between the first digital assistant and the second user in the conversation interface (Gershony, see [0111] and 4D, the conversational rules help create a format that is easily understood by the chat bots for ease of communication, wherein the messaging application provide an option to a user to switch to a bot mode, which changes the user's avatar to a bot and automatically replies to conversations).
As to claim 14, Gershony discloses everything disclosed in claim 13, wherein the interface associated with the first user comprises at least one of: a conversation interface between the second user and the first user, or a user personal homepage of the first user (Gershony, see [0075] and fig. 3, user interface shows the messages can be communicated between a user and a bot).
As to claim 15, Gershony discloses everything disclosed in claim 13, further comprising: displaying, to the first user, information relating to the interaction between the first digital assistant and the second user (Gershony, see [0111] and 4D, the conversational rules help create a format that is easily understood by the chat bots for ease of communication, wherein the messaging application provide an option to a user to switch to a bot mode, which changes the user's avatar to a bot and automatically replies to conversations).
As to claim 16, Gershony discloses everything disclosed in claim 15, wherein displaying the information relating to the interaction between the first digital assistant and the second user comprises at least one of: displaying, in a conversation interface between the first user and the first digital assistant, a message from the first digital assistant, the message comprising a record of the interaction, displaying, in a conversation interface between the first user and the first digital assistant, a plurality of messages generated in the interaction in an aggregate form, or displaying, in a conversation interface between the first user and the second user, the plurality of messages generated in the interaction (Gershony, see [0104] and fig. 4E, conversation interface showing a conversation between multiple users).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gershony et al. (U.S. Publication 2017/0180276), hereinafter “Gershony” in view of Bradley (U.S. Publication 2021/0044547), hereinafter “Bradley”.
As to claim 12, Gershony discloses everything disclosed in claim 1, but is silent to in response to the configuration operation taking effect, displaying a deactivation control in a user personal homepage of the first user or an assistant personal homepage of the first digital assistant; and in response to the deactivation control being triggered, disabling the first digital assistant from replacing the first user in interacting with the second user. However, Bradley discloses in response to the configuration operation taking effect, displaying a deactivation control in a user personal homepage of the first user or an assistant personal homepage of the first digital assistant (Bradley, see [0146] and fig. 10E, agent rescues the conversation between a user and the bot, wherein the agent takes over the conversation); and in response to the deactivation control being triggered, disabling the first digital assistant from replacing the first user in interacting with the second user (Bradley, see [0146] and fig. 10E, if the confidence rating or score for the bot falls below a particular threshold value, the communication server can automatically transfer the conversation to the agent). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gershony in view of Bradley in order to further modify the method of analyzing content of one or more messages and/or user information to automatically provide suggestions to a user within a messaging application from the teachings of Gershony with the method of transferring messaging to automation from the teachings of Bradley. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because it would allow to indicate to the agent that the bot's performance is degrading with regard to the particular conversation (Bradley — Paragraph 0146).
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 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 TANIA M PENA-SANTANA whose telephone number is (571)270-0627. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8am to 4pm EST.
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, Nicholas R Taylor can be reached at 5712723889. 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.
/TANIA M PENA-SANTANA/Examiner, Art Unit 2443
/NICHOLAS R TAYLOR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2443
Prosecution Insights