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
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 08/17/2026 has been entered.
Notice to Applicant
In response to the communication received on 08/17/2026, the following is a Non-Final Office Action for Application No. 18950980.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Priority
As required by M.P.E.P. 201.14(c), acknowledgement is made of applicant’s claim for priority based on: 18950980 filed 11/18/2024 is a Continuation of 17872713 , filed 07/25/2022 ,now U.S. Patent # 12175399 and having 1 RCE-type filing therein; 17872713 is a Continuation of 17146404 , filed 01/11/2021, now abandoned; 17146404 Claims Priority from Provisional Application 62959518 , filed 01/10/2020.
Response to Amendments
Applicant’s amendments have been fully considered. Applicant’s amendments to the claims overcome the 35 U.S.C 101 rejection, and hence the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection has been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot in light of the new grounds of rejection, as necessitated by amendment.
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 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 of this title, 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Erhart et al. (US 20170282362 A1) hereinafter referred to as Erhart in view of Yao et al. (US 20130346339 A1) hereinafter referred to as Yao in further view of Gruber et al. (AU 2012316484 A1) hereinafter referred to as Gruber.
Erhart teaches:
Claim 1. A method for creating and assigning one or more virtual assistants, comprising:
identifying, by a computer comprising a processor and memory, one or more roles in a target environment, wherein the one or more roles correspond to one or more human experts (¶0120 In one embodiment, processor 304 may be a portion of a contact center, robot application store, local device, service provider, and/or other entity or enterprise. User 302 may provide processor 304 with a specific instruction, such as one of instructions 308A-n, requested or identify a task or issue to solve, whereby processor 304 determines the appropriate instruction. ¶0124 Should configured robot 314, or un-configured robot 310 once configured, be determined to be unsuitable or unable to performance the task, processor 304 may attempt to provision a different configured robot 314, dispatch a human agent, or notify user 302 that the task is not able to be performed by a robot and/or seek a different means to perform the task);
defining, by the computer, one or more tasks and one or more domains associated with each of the one or more roles (¶0120 In one embodiment, processor 304 may be a portion of a contact center, robot application store, local device, service provider, and/or other entity or enterprise. User 302 may provide processor 304 with a specific instruction, such as one of instructions 308A-n, requested or identify a task or issue to solve, whereby processor 304 determines the appropriate instruction. ¶0122 User 302 may own or otherwise control unconfigured robot 310. User 302 may install hardware accessory 312 and or instruction C (308C) directly or via request to processor 304. Processor 304 may determine the request requires unconfigured robot 310 to have (e.g., attached, installed, paired, available, in communication with, etc.) hardware accessory 312 to enable configured robot 314 to perform the task);
creating, by the computer, a virtual assistant persona for each of the one or more roles (¶0120 FIG. 3 depicts system 300 in accordance with embodiments of the present disclosure. Configured robot 314 may be configured to perform a task or set of tasks from un-configured robot 310. Transformation of un-configured robot 310 to configured robot 314 is variously embodied. ¶0121 In one embodiment, un-configured robot 310 requires software instructions and a hardware accessory in order to perform a particular task);
assigning, by the computer, the one or more defined tasks and the one or more defined domains to the one or more virtual assistant personas (¶¶0120-0121 Transformation of un-configured robot 310 to configured robot 314 is variously embodied. In one embodiment, user 302, alone or with benefit of an electronic communication device (e.g., smart phone, Internet connected computer, dedicated robot configuring device, etc.) provides processor 304 with an issue or task. In one embodiment, processor 304 may be a portion of a contact center, robot application store, local device, service provider, and/or other entity or enterprise. User 302 may provide processor 304 with a specific instruction, such as one of instructions 308A-n, requested or identify a task or issue to solve, whereby processor 304 determines the appropriate instruction. In one embodiment, un-configured robot 310 requires software instructions and a hardware accessory in order to perform a particular task. User 302 provides the issue or task or specifies the instructions causing processor 304 to access data repository 306 comprising instructions 308. Processor 304 determines that instruction C (308C) is the appropriate instruction. Processor 304 then causes un-configured robot 310 to load instruction set 308C thereby causing robot 310 to become configured robot 314. Configured robot 314 may then be deployed for the performance of the task); and
in response to receiving an input from a worker, assigning, by the computer, one of the virtual assistant personas to interact with the worker, wherein a role of the assigned virtual assistant persona is supervisory to the worker (¶0133 Supervisor robot 502 may monitor a plurality of robots 102 such as to ensure proper coordination of physical activities. For example, robot 102 and a number of peer robots may be attempting to lift four corners of an object uniformly. Supervisor robot 502 may monitor each of robots 102 and the number of peer robots and/or the object being lifted to ensure coordination or take appropriate action if coordination is not evident to the degree expected.) ; and
activating, by the assigned virtual assistant persona, an interactive display device that compensates for limitations of the input by providing graphic data visualization and user input options to navigate along data and respond to a conversational dialogue according to defined relationships (¶0080 In another embodiment, robot 102 may interact with one or more human and/or automated resources. For example, robot 102 may utilize an on-board speaker or display to communicate with a human, such as to request assistance in locating the object of the task. In another embodiment, robot 102 may communicate with an off-site resource (human and/or automated) to access data, instructions, etc. or to provide data, which may include, but is not limited to, images, videos, sound, and/or other data (e.g., serial numbers, settings, display values, etc.). ¶0187 Device 1400 may comprise display 1402 proving statuses, input means, and/or outputs for robot 102. In one embodiment, device 1400 may be utilized for providing robot 102, authorizing robot 102 to perform a task; pausing or terminating operations of robot 102; and optionally scuttling robot 102, such as be causing the destructive, or non-destructive, purging of data and/or circuitry within robot 102. Device 1400 may be utilized and a communication device with contact center 602 and agent 612 and may further operate as a node in a communication link between contact center 602 and robot 102).
Although not explicitly taught by Erhart, Yao teaches in the analogous art of configuring process variants for on-boarding customers for information technology (it) outsourcing:
wherein the one or more roles correspond to one or more human experts (¶0062 Organizational perspective involves roles and responsibilities in the process. Functional perspective captures what activities are performed. Behavioral perspective describes the execution sequence of activities. Data perspective records the data flow among activities. Business goals, KPIs, and metrics are available in the goal perspective. For example, the following rule VCR.sub.--1 shows an additional role for subject-matter expertise (ProcessSME) is needed to be responsible for a certain process when dealing with large deals. Rules that reflect other perspectives are formalized in a similar way. ¶0020 The data collection phase 110 may include input from case studies in on-boarding projects and interviews with on-boarding managers and team members. In an example, process guides based on best practices stated in the Information Technology Infrastructure Library (ITIL) and collected process logs of past projects were used (steps 1-2). Deviations in these process logs may be analyzed with the help of domain experts to link these with individual steps in the standard process guides and associate these deviations with their causes (step 3).).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the configuring process variants for on-boarding customers for information technology (it) outsourcing of Yao with the command and control of a user-provided robot by a contact center of Erhart for the following reasons:
(1) a finding that there was some teaching, suggestion, or motivation, either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the reference or to combine reference teachings, e.g. Erhart ¶0002 teaches that it is desirable to have low-cost, general purpose personal robots;
(2) a finding that there was reasonable expectation of success since the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference, e.g. Erhart Abstract teaches instructions to transform an unconfigured robot, such as a generic robot, into a configured robot operable to perform the task, and Yao Abstract teaches systems and methods of configuring process variants for on-boarding customers for information technology (IT) outsourcing; and
(3) whatever additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries may be necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness, e.g. Erhart at least the above cited paragraphs, and Yao at least the inclusively cited paragraphs.
Therefore, it would be obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the invention to combine the configuring process variants for on-boarding customers for information technology (it) outsourcing of Yao with the command and control of a user-provided robot by a contact center of Erhart. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that "a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention and whether there would have been a reasonable expectation of success in doing so." DyStar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1360, 80 USPQ2d 1641, 1645 (Fed. Cir. 2006). See MPEP 2143(G).
Although not explicitly taught by Erhart in view of Yao, Gruber teaches in the analogous art of automatically adapting user interfaces for hands-free interaction:
activating, by the assigned virtual assistant persona, an interactive display device that compensates for limitations of the input by providing graphic data visualization and user input options to navigate along data and respond to a conversational dialogue according to defined relationships, wherein the interactive display device displays a chatbot interface side-by-side with a graphical user interface (GUI) interface, the chatbot interface using natural language processing to support voice- or text-based interactions in a conversational chat format and the GUI interface supporting touch- or cursor-based interactions (Figs. 5A-5D, 6A-6C and ¶0008 According to various embodiments of the present invention, a user interface for a system such as a virtual assistant is automatically adapted for hands-free use. A hands-free context is detected via automatic or manual means, and the system adapts various stages of a complex interactive system to modify the user experience to reflect the particular limitations of such a context. The system of the present invention thus allows for a single implementation of a virtual assistant or other complex system to dynamically offer user interface elements and to alter user interface behavior to allow hands-free use without compromising the user experience of the same system for hands-on use. For example, in various embodiments, the system of the present invention pro vides mechanisms for adjusting the operation of a virtual assistant so that it provides output in a manner that allows users to complete their tasks without having to read details on a screen. Furthermore, in various embodiments, the virtual assistant can provide mechanisms for receiving spoken input as an alternative to reading, tapping, clicking, typing, or performing other functions often achieved using a graphical user interface. In various embodiments, the system of the present invention provides underlying functionality that is identical to (or that approximates) that of a conventional graphical user interface, while allowing for the particular requirements and limitations associated with a hands-free context. ¶0058 Referring now to Fig. 10, there is shown a block diagram depicting an architecture for implementing at least a portion of a virtual assistant on a standalone computing system, according to at least one embodiment. Computing device 60 includes processor(s) 63 which run software for implementing multimodal virtual assistant 1002. Input device 1206 can be of any type suitable for receiving user input, including for example a keyboard, touchscreen, mouse, touchpad, trackball, five-way switch, joystick, and/or any combination thereof. Device 60 can also include speech input device 1211, such as for example a microphone. Output device 1207 can be a screen, speaker, printer, and/or any com bination thereof. Memory 1210 can be random-access memory having a structure and architecture as are known in the art, for use by processor(s) 63 in the course of running software.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the automatically adapting user interfaces for hands-free interaction of Gruber with the command and control of a user-provided robot by a contact center of Erhart in view of Yao for the following reasons:
(1) a finding that there was some teaching, suggestion, or motivation, either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the reference or to combine reference teachings, e.g. Erhart ¶0002 teaches that it is desirable to have low-cost, general purpose personal robots;
(2) a finding that there was reasonable expectation of success since the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference, e.g. Erhart Abstract teaches instructions to transform an unconfigured robot, such as a generic robot, into a configured robot operable to perform the task, and Yao Abstract teaches systems and methods of configuring process variants for on-boarding customers for information technology (IT) outsourcing, and Gruber Abstract teaches a user interface for a system such as a virtual assistant is automatically adapted for hands-free use; and
(3) whatever additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries may be necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness, e.g. Erhart in view of Yao at least the above cited paragraphs, and Gruber at least the inclusively cited paragraphs.
Therefore, it would be obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the invention to combine the automatically adapting user interfaces for hands-free interaction of Gruber with the command and control of a user-provided robot by a contact center of Erhart in view of Yao. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that "a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention and whether there would have been a reasonable expectation of success in doing so." DyStar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1360, 80 USPQ2d 1641, 1645 (Fed. Cir. 2006). See MPEP 2143(G).
Erhart teaches:
Claim 2. The method of Claim 1, wherein the one or more roles comprise one or more of: providing information to one or more workers, authorizing one or more activities of one or more workers and performing an activity required by one or more workers to perform one or more tasks (¶0080 In another embodiment, robot 102 may interact with one or more human and/or automated resources. For example, robot 102 may utilize an on-board speaker or display to communicate with a human, such as to request assistance in locating the object of the task. In another embodiment, robot 102 may communicate with an off-site resource (human and/or automated) to access data, instructions, etc. or to provide data, which may include, but is not limited to, images, videos, sound, and/or other data (e.g., serial numbers, settings, display values, etc.). ¶0156 I/O device 230, when embodied as a camera, may see customer 302 gesture to issue commands. Gestured commands, natively, may include, but are not limited to, pointing, looking (e.g., eye position), facial expression, waving, sign language, body position, interacting (e.g., pointing, touching, holding, looking, moving, etc.) with an object other than robot 102, physical activity (e.g., running, walking, sitting, standing, etc.), location/orientation (e.g., present in a location having a meaning different than if present in another location, arm position, leg position, etc.), attire, proximity to another human, physical interaction with another human, identity of a proximate other human, role of a proximate other human, and/or other observable human trait, attribute, or behavior.).
Erhart teaches:
Claim 3. The method of Claim 1, further comprising: transmitting, by the computer, the one or more defined tasks to a workforce management system (¶0121 In one embodiment, un-configured robot 310 requires software instructions and a hardware accessory in order to perform a particular task. User 302 provides the issue or task or specifies the instructions causing processor 304 to access data repository 306 comprising instructions 308. Processor 304 determines that instruction C (308C) is the appropriate instruction. Processor 304 then causes un-configured robot 310 to load instruction set 308C thereby causing robot 310 to become configured robot 314. Configured robot 314 may then be deployed for the performance of the task).
Erhart teaches:
Claim 4. The method of Claim 1, wherein each of the one or more defined domains has an associated group of tasks (¶0120 FIG. 3 depicts system 300 in accordance with embodiments of the present disclosure. Configured robot 314 may be configured to perform a task or set of tasks from un-configured robot 310. Transformation of un-configured robot 310 to configured robot 314 is variously embodied.).
Erhart teaches:
Claim 5. The method of Claim 1, wherein the virtual assistant persona is assigned based on an intent determined from the received input (¶0078 In another embodiment, a portion of robot 102 is owned by a customer and another portion is owned by the contact center. The portion of robot 102 owned by the contact center may be hardware and/or software. For example, a customer may wish to deploy robot 102 to perform a specialized task, such as to repair a washing machine. Robot 102 may require specialized tools to perform such a task. Accordingly, the customer may contact the contact center or other entity and schedule delivery of a component to coordinate with robot 102 and provide the tools necessary to complete the task.).
Erhart teaches:
Claim 6. The method of Claim 1, further comprising: in response to determining that the received input requires an on-duty expert, routing, by the computer, the received input to the on-duty expert (¶0097 In another embodiment, third-party monitoring agent 116 monitors and/or audits robot 102. Third-party monitoring agent 116 may receive signals from robot 102 and/or any other agents (e.g., agents 108, 110, 112, 114), human-submitted observations, other automated systems (e.g., robot delivery/servicing, financial, credit reporting, etc.) to determine if robot 102 is operating within a previously determined protocol. Third-party monitoring agent 116 may determine if a violation of protocol has occurred and signal personnel associated with at least one of service location 104, robot 102, and/or other human or automated agent that such a violation has occurred. In another embodiment, third-party monitoring agent 116 may cause, directly or via other agent (e.g., agents 108, 110, 112, 114), and/or personnel to perform corrective action to cause robot 102 to return to operating within the previously determined protocol.).
Erhart teaches:
Claim 7. The method of Claim 6, wherein the determining that the received input requires an on-duty expert is based on one or more policies and one or more rules (¶0096 In another embodiment, privacy agent 114 may monitor robot 102, and components thereof, to ensure compliance with a privacy policy. In one embodiment, privacy agent 114 detects and reports compliance, or lack of compliance, with a privacy policy. In another embodiment, privacy agent 114 enforces the privacy policy. For example, a robot 102 may be moving throughout service location 104 to access the location for a task. Persons, photographs, and other images may be encountered. Accordingly, privacy agent 114 may cause the camera(s) of robot 102 to degrade (e.g., lower resolution, fewer frames, altered contrast or other image setting, introduced noise, redaction, etc.) until such time as the cameras are required to perform the task.).
As per claims 8-14 and 15-20, the non-transitory computer-readable storage media and system tracks the method of claims 1-7 and 1-6, respectively, resulting in substantially similar limitations. The same cited prior art and rationale of claims 1-7 and 1-6 are applied to claims 8-14 and 15-20, respectively. Erhart discloses that the embodiment may be found as a system and non-transitory computer-readable storage media (Fig. 1 and ¶0030).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KURTIS GILLS whose telephone number is (571)270-3315. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 PM.
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, Jerry O’Connor can be reached on 571-272-6787. 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.
/KURTIS GILLS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624
Prosecution Insights