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
The office action sent in response to Applicant’s communication received on 11/18/2024 for the application number 18951350. The office hereby acknowledges receipt of the following placed of record in the file: Specification, Abstract, Oath/Declaration and claims.
Priority
This application is a continuation of U.S. Patent Application Serial No. 17/497,797 filed October 08, 2021, entitled "INTELLIGENT AUTOMATED ASSISTANT IN A HOME ENVIRONMENT," which is a continuation of U.S. Patent Application Serial No. 15/994,795 filed May 31, 2018, entitled "INTELLIGENT AUTOMATED ASSISTANT IN A HOME ENVIRONMENT," which is a continuation of U.S. Patent Application Serial No. 15/274,859, now U.S. Patent No. 10,354,011, filed September 23, 2016, entitled "INTELLIGENT AUTOMATED ASSISTANT IN A HOME ENVIRONMENT," which claims priority to U.S. Provisional Serial No. 62/348,015, filed on June 9, 2016, entitled "INTELLIGENT AUTOMATED ASSISTANT IN A HOME ENVIRONMENT”.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1, 16 and 17 are amended. Claims 18-39 are added. Claims 1-39 are presented for examination.
Response to Arguments
The applicant’s arguments filed on 8/18/2026 have been reviewed, and the response is provided below.
Double Patenting
In the absence of a terminal disclaimer, the nonstatutory double patenting rejection is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 103
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-39 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-39 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over combinations of claims 1-46 of US Patent 10354011 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Claims 1-39 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over combinations of claims 1-45 of US Patent 12223282 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
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.
And
KSR, 550 U.S. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396. Exemplary rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include:
(A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results;
(B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results;
(C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way;
(D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
(E) "Obvious to try" – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success;
(F) Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art;
(G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
See MPEP § 2143 for a discussion of the rationales listed above along with examples illustrating how the cited rationales may be used to support a finding of obviousness. See also MPEP § 2144 - § 2144.09 for additional guidance regarding support for obviousness determination.
Claims 1-6, 8-10, 13-16, 18-21, 23-24, 27-32, 34-35 and 38-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagasaka (US Pub: 20180349084) and further in view of Faaborg (US 20150370531) and further in view of Beaumont (US 20150154134)
Regarding claim 1, Nagasaka teaches an electronic device, comprising: one or more processors; and memory storing one or more programs configured to be executed by the one or more processors, the one or more programs including instructions ( Fig 4 and Fig 6) for:
receiving a user request defining a request for a first device of an established location to perform an action ( for e.g. turn on air circulation, Para 0081) and a condition that is required to be satisfied prior to performing the action ( after turning on the air conditioner and close curtains, , Para 0081-0085) ; device is at established location ( the system knows where the devices are located, Para 0048, Fig 1A-B) ;determining, based on the user request and a relative term ( for e.g. hot or cold in terms of setting temperature, Para 0162) , an actionable intent of performing a task with the first device of the established location when an actual value of a sensor satisfies the condition ( close blinds based on air circulation which is based on temperature; where in it is considered that basic user feelings are given to the agent such as “temperature of 28° C. or more means hot” “temperature of 15° C. or less means cold”, “users hate drying” “rain means sad”, and “users hate pollens”. This enables the agent to tune its functions such that the functions match a user that the agent stays together., Para 0162, Para 0081-0085) ; identifying, based on the user request and the data structure, a second device including the sensor ( the thermostat which has a temperature sensor, Fig 9-11) , wherein identifying the second device includes: determining, based on a portion of the user request defining the condition and the location, one or more candidate device characteristics ( temperature control, Fig 11) and one or more candidate devices from the set of devices of the established location including the second device ((thermostat, Para 0081-0085, Fig 9-11) , wherein the candidate devices have overlapping device characteristics that are common between the device characteristics of the data structure for one or more candidate devices and possible device characteristics determined from the discourse input (temperature sensor, Para 0081-0085), and identifying the second device ( fig 11-13) ; receiving sensor data from the second device (thermostat having sensor for temperature, Fig 11-13) ; determining, based on the received sensor data, that the actual value of the sensor satisfies the condition (hot or cold based on the temperature, Para 0162); and in accordance with a determination that the actual value of the sensor satisfies the condition, causing the first device to perform the task (for e.g. turn on ac or air circulation etc., Para 0081-0090)
Nagasaka does not explicitly teach retrieving a data structure representing a set of devices of the established location identifying devices based on data structure
However, Faaborg teach retrieving a data structure representing a set of devices of the established location ( computing device retrieves data structure of contextual information, wherein contextual information has multiple devices stored as a data structure, Para 0031) identifying devices based on data structure ( based on the application and location and the voice command, the device perform the action, Para 0022, 0025, 0031)
Nagasaka's base concept uses user intent, conditions/criteria, and device location to execute an action based on a user command. Although Nagasaka generally presumes device locations are known, the claimed invention differs by utilizing a data structure that explicitly represents these locations. Faaborg teaches a comparable concept of retrieving a data structure to command devices. This improves the system by mapping the locations of all different devices, enabling the system to distinguish between them accurately. Faaborg's known improvement could have been applied to Nagasaka before the effective filing date to yield predictable results, such as reducing wasted energy, avoiding parallel-processing problems, and overall improving the user experience. ( Para 0022, Faaborg)
Nagasaka modified by Faaborg does not explicitly teach wherein identifying the second device includes: determining, based on a portion of the user request defining the condition and the location, one or more candidate device characteristics and two or more candidate devices from the set of devices of the established location including the second device, wherein the two or more candidate devices have overlapping device characteristics that are common between the device characteristics of the data structure for the two or more candidate devices and possible device characteristics determined from the discourse input, and wherein the two or more candidate devices cannot be disambiguated based on the data structure; and identifying the second device based on a requirement that the second device is closer to the first device than other candidate devices of the two or more candidate devices
However, Beaumont teaches wherein identifying the second device includes: determining, based on a portion of the user request defining the condition and the location, one or more candidate device characteristics and two or more candidate devices from the set of devices of the established location including the second device ( a device capable of receiving an output for e.g. TV, table etc., Fig 6, Para 0060-0061) , wherein the two or more candidate devices have overlapping device characteristics that are common between the device characteristics of the data structure for the two or more candidate devices and possible device characteristics determined from the discourse input ( a device capable of receiving that input, Para 0060-0061) , and wherein the two or more candidate devices cannot be disambiguated based on the data structure ( device within the proximity location, Para 0045-0048) ; and identifying the second device based on a requirement that the second device is closer to the first device than other candidate devices of the two or more candidate devices ( device closest to is identified, Para 0061, Fig 6)
It would have been obvious to POSITA having the concept of Nagasaka and Faaborg to further include Beaumont before effective filing date to find the most suitable device for providing the output ( Para 0002, Beaumont)
Regarding claim 2, Nagasaka modified by Faaborg as above in claim 1, teach wherein the condition is associated with an operating state of the second device (for e.g. turning on the thermostat, Para 0081-0085; data representing the current state of the device, Para 0031)
Regarding claim 3, Nagasaka as above in claim 2, teach, wherein the condition comprises a requirement that the operating state of the second device is equal to a reference operating state ( for e.g. turn on or off, Para 0081-0090, Fig 9-13)
Regarding claim 4, Nagasaka modified by Faaborg as above in claim 2, teach wherein the condition comprises a requirement that the operating state of the second device transitions from a second reference operating state to a third reference operating state ( change of the state for e.g. on to off or to on based on conditions, Fig 7-13 OR ( light is turned on after predetermined time when the curtain closes, Para 0093; 0126, 0047- an information processing device 10 placed on a shelf in a living room tilts its head such that its eyes faces upward, gradually light its eyes, and displays the current time (scene N11). In addition, a clock in a user's bedroom outputs a predetermined piece of music when the current time becomes the wake-up time (scene N12))
Regarding claim 5, Nagasaka as above in claim 1, teach, wherein the condition comprises a requirement that the actual value is greater than, equal to, or less than a threshold value ( for e.g. hot can mean greater that 28 degrees, Para 0162) .
Regarding claim 6, Nagasaka modified by Faaborg as above in claim 5, teach, wherein determining the actionable intent further comprises determining, based on the user request, the threshold value ( for e.g. turn on ac when its hot, Para 0162)
Regarding claim 8, Nagasaka as above in claim 1, teach, wherein the sensor data satisfies the condition when the task has been performed less than a predetermined number of times within a predetermined period of time ( for e.g. light turns on within a predetermined amount of time, Para 0093, 0132-0137)
Regarding claim 9, Nagasaka as above in claim 1, teach, wherein determining the actionable intent of performing the task includes determining a reference time from the user request, and wherein the sensor data satisfies the condition when a time indicated on the second device is greater than or less than the reference time ( a case where a light is turned on within a predetermined period of time after a user closes curtains, Para 0093, 0132-0137)
Regarding claim 10, Nagasaka as above in claim 1, teach, wherein the user request includes one or more ambiguous terms and wherein the condition is defined using the one or more ambiguous terms ( hot or cold, Para 0162)
Regarding claim 13, Nagasaka as above in claim 1, teach, wherein the actionable intent is associated with a second condition to be satisfied prior to performing the task (conditions – Fig 9-13)
Regarding claim 14, Nagasaka as above in claim 13, teach, wherein satisfying the second condition requires the condition to be satisfied ( fig 9-13)
Regarding claim 15, Nagasaka modified by Faaborg as above in claim 13, teach, wherein the one or more programs further include instructions for: receiving second sensor data associated with the second condition; and determining from the received second sensor data whether the second condition is satisfied, wherein the electronic device causes the first device to perform the task in response to determining that the second condition is satisfied ( for e.g. turn on the air circulation or close the curtains etc., Para) 0093; 0126, 0047)
Regarding claim 16, rejection analogous to claim 1, are applicable.
Regarding claim 17, rejection analogous to claim 1, are applicable.
Regarding claim 18, arguments analogous to claim 2, are applicable.
Regarding claim 19, arguments analogous to claim 3, are applicable.
Regarding claim 20, arguments analogous to claim 4, are applicable.
Regarding claim 21, arguments, analogous to claim 5, are applicable.
Regarding claim 23, arguments analogous to claim 8, are applicable.
Regarding claim 24, arguments analogous to claim 9, are applicable.
Regarding claim 27, arguments analogous to claim 13, are applicable.
Regarding claim 28, arguments, analogous to claim 15, are applicable.
Regarding claim 29, arguments analogous to claim 2, are applicable.
Regarding claim 30, arguments analogous to claim 3, are applicable.
Regarding claim 31, arguments analogous to claim 4, are applicable.
Regarding claim 32, arguments analogous to claim 5, are applicable.
Regarding claim 34, arguments analogous to claim 8 are applicable.
Regarding claim 35, arguments analogous to claim 9, are applicable.
Regarding claim 38, arguments analogous to claim 13, are applicable.
Regarding claim 39, arguments, analogous to claim 15, are applicable.
Claim 7, 22 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagasaka (US Pub: 20180349084) and further in view of Faaborg (US 20150370531) and further in view of Beaumont ( US 20150154134)and further in view of Bell (US 20100066487)
Regarding claim 7, Nagasaka modified by Faaborg as above in claim 1, does not teach, wherein the condition is associated with an authentication characteristic of the second device
However, Bell teach wherein the condition is associated with an authentication characteristic of the second device(central access system may provide certain keys may be provided access to only certain access points in the system (e.g., a teen's key may access the home door locks but not the car ignition after a particular time of day, Para 0062)
It would have been obvious having the teachings of Nagasaka and Faaborg to further incorporate the concept of Bell before effective filing date since It would be advantageous for such a system to "learn" the unique aspects of the user key so that the user key can be employed to authenticate the user with respect to one or more of a variety of locks, security systems and/or access control systems. ( Para 0005, Bell)
Regarding claim 22, arguments analogous to claim 7 are applicable.
Regarding claim 33, arguments analogous to claim 7 are applicable.
Claim 11, 25 and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagasaka (US Pub: 20180349084) and further in view of Faaborg (US 20150370531) and further in view of Beaumont ( US 20150154134)and further in view of Fadell(US 20150097686)
Regarding claim 11, Nagasaka modified by Faaborg as above in claim 1, does not teach , wherein the second device includes a brightness sensor and wherein the sensor data includes a brightness of the established location
However, Fadell teaches wherein the second device includes a brightness sensor and wherein the sensor data includes a brightness of the established location ( The light may be activated based on a user being present in the vicinity of the hazard detector and the brightness level in the ambient environment being less than a threshold level. Other factors, such as a battery charge level and whether a hazard has been detected may be considered when determining whether the light should be illuminated. The light may serve multiple purposes, one of which being to output light when certain conditions are realized., Para 0004, 0024)
It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA having the teachings of Nagasaka and Faaborg to further include the concept of Karp before effective filing date, thereby ensuring user safety (Col 1, Fadell )
Regarding claim 25, arguments analogous to claim 11 are applicable.
Regarding claim 36, arguments analogous to claim 11 are applicable.
Claim 12, 26 and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagasaka ( US Pub: 20180349084) and further in view of Faaborg (US 20150370531) and further in view of Beaumont ( US 20150154134) and further in view of Karp (WO 2015200342)
Regarding claim 12, Nagasaka modified by Faaborg as above in claim 1, does not teach wherein the second device includes an air quality sensor and wherein the sensor data includes an air quality of the established location
However, Karp teach wherein the second device includes an air quality sensor and wherein the sensor data includes an air quality of the established location( When serving as a localized air monitor/purifier for an occupant, a particular service robot 69 can be considered to be facilitating what can be called a "personal health-area network" for the occupant, with the objective being to keep the air quality in the occupant's immediate space at healthy levels. Alternatively or in conjunction therewith, other health-related functions can be provided, such as monitoring the temperature or heart rate of the occupant (e.g., using finely remote sensors, near-field communication with on-person monitors, etc.). When serving as a localized hazard detector for an occupant, a particular service robot 69 can be considered to be facilitating what can be called a "personal safety-area network" for the occupant, with the objective being to ensure there is no excessive carbon monoxide, smoke, fire, etc., in the immediate space of the occupant. Methods analogous to those described above for personal comfort-area networks in terms of occupant identifying and tracking are likewise applicable for personal health-area network and personal safety-area network embodiments. Para 0115; wherein the wearable electronic device comprises a wearable baby monitor worn by a baby and the processor is configured to: determine, using data from the wearable baby monitor, vital statistics of the baby; and when the vital statistics are in an unhealthy range, provide an alarm trigger to a hazard detector via the message., Clause 22-23)
It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA having the teachings of Nagasaka and Faaborg to further include the concept of Karp before effective filing date, thereby rendering the operation of IoT devices a functional mechanism for ensuring user comfort ( Para 0114-0115)
Regarding claim 26, arguments analogous to claim 12 are applicable.
Regarding claim 37, arguments analogous to claim 12 are applicable.
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 Richa Sonifrank whose telephone number is (571)272-5357. The examiner can normally be reached M-T 7AM - 5:30PM.
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, Phan Hai can be reached at (571)272-6338. 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.
/Richa Sonifrank/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2654
Prosecution Insights