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 .
This office action is in response amendments filed on February 12, 2025.
Claims 21-50 have been canceled.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
As required by M.P.E.P. 609(C), the applicant’s submissions of the Information Disclosure Statements dated February 12, 2025 and May 28, 2026 are acknowledged by the examiner and the cited references have been considered in the examination of the claims now pending. As required by M.P.E.P 609, a copy of the PTOL-1449 initialed and dated by the examiner is attached to the office action.
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.
Claims 1-6, 9-16, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peters (US20250298974A1) in further view of Walker et al. (US20170358303A1).
Regarding claim 1, Peters teaches a method for providing a context-aware clipboard, the method comprising:
receiving, using control circuitry, input data comprising sensor data characterizing a detection field of at least one sensor (Various types of implicit input may be received ... through one or more modalities (e.g., microphone, camera, and/or another form of sensor))([0066]);
determining, using control circuitry, a first intent associated with the input data (FIG. 4 provides an example software architecture for implicit input classification ... Classification model 410 may receive input ... to determine an overall intent or meaning)([0080] and [0088]; Figure 4 – processing input to determine intent is shown);
accessing, using control circuitry … a plurality of applications; comparing, using control circuitry, the first intent … determining, using control circuitry, based on the comparison, at least one application of the plurality of applications associated with the first intent; and performing, using control circuitry, an operation using the determined application, the operation based on the input data and the determined first intent (Given that a significant portion of implicit input is in textual or image form, an LLM may be able to assist with the determination of an intent from this implicit input ... LLM prompt pre-processor 502 and LLM response post-processor 504 may be able to generate more specific and precise output that is tailored for determining an intent relevant to such a software application. For example, if the user's implicit input involves an indication that the user wishes to read the news, LLM prompt pre-processor 502 or LLM response post-processor 504 may query application data 506C to determine which news applications are available to the user)([0097] and [0103]; a LLM is used to compare user intent to select an application to execute).
Peters differs from the claim in that Peters fails to explicitly teach accessing intents associated with applications. However, accessing intents associated with applications is taught by Walker (At block 815, a software application associated with the intent may be identified ... identifying software applications may include determining one or more domains corresponding to an intent and identifying applications corresponding to the domain(s) ... applications may be registered ... Registering in this manner may include specifying which domains (e.g., ride-booking domain, air travel domain, navigation domain) correspond to the software application ... applications may be registered with individual intents, and identifying applications may include identifying applications corresponding to the identified intent)([0266] and [0267]; intents (i.e., domains/individual intents) are registered to applications, the registration is accessed to identify an appropriate application).
The examiner notes Peters and Walker teach a controlling applications based on user intent. As such, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Peters to include the accessing of Walker such that intents associated with applications is accessed. One would be motivated to make such a combination to provide the advantage of effectively integrating application control.
Regarding claim 2, Peters-Walker teach the method of claim 1, wherein the determining of the first intent comprises performing a semantic analysis on at least a portion of the input data (Peters - an LLM is an advanced NLP model that can determine the semantic content and/or interpret the semantic meaning of textual or image-based input)([0097]; an LLM preforms sematic analysis on input).
Regarding claim 3, Peters-Walker teach the method of claim 2, wherein the input data comprises text or language data (Peters - implicit input might be ... user utterances ... employing various types of machine learning models to determine the semantic meaning ... models may include natural language processing ... such as textual or multi-model large language models)([0002] and [0004]).
Regarding claim 4, Peters-Walker teach the method of claim 2, wherein the sensor data comprises image data characterizing a field of view of an imaging device, and wherein the semantic analysis comprises semantic segmentation of the image data (Peters - implicit input might be ... environmental images ... employing various types of machine learning models to determine the semantic meaning ... models may include … trained image processing)([0002] and [0004]).
Regarding claim 5, Peters-Walker teach the method of claim 1, further comprising, following the determining of the application: outputting, using control circuitry, an interactive element associated with the at least one determined application; and receiving, using control circuitry, an indication of an interaction with the interactive element (although Peters does not disclose outputting interactive elements associated with applications and receiving user input with an interactive element, said outputting and receiving is taught by Walker (a list of one or more software applications is provided. The list of one or more software applications may, for instance, include one or more software applications configured to perform the task associated with the intent according to any identified parameters ... receives a user input indicative of a selection of one or more software applications of the list of one or more software applications)([0300] and [0301]). The examiner notes both Peters and Walker teach a controlling applications based on user intent. As such, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Peters to include the outputting and the receiving of Walker such that interactive elements associated with applications is outputted and user input with an interactive element is received. One would be motivated to make such a combination to provide the advantage of effectively integrating application control).
Regarding claim 6, Peters-Walker teach the method of claim 1, wherein the operation comprises :generating, using the input data, a query based on the first intent; and performing the query using the at least one determined application (Peters - Upon receiving an input, such as a text query ... The model then generates an output, which could be ... an answer to a query)([0055]).
Regarding claim 9, Peters-Walker teach the method of claim 1, further comprising: storing the determined first intent; receiving instructions to execute a second application of the plurality of applications; accessing the stored first intent; and performing a second operation using the second application, the operation based on the input data and the stored first intent (although Peter discloses storing determined intent (Processor 102 may also include register memory for temporarily storing instructions being executed and related data)([0037]). Peter does not disclose executing a second application, accessing the stored intent, and utilizing the second application to perform a second operation based on the input data and the stored intent. However, said executing, accessing, and utilizing is taught by Walker (a plurality of intents and/or a plurality of applications may be identified. Parameters associated with each of the intents are optionally identified as well. The natural-language input “Get me a ride to the airport and tell me my flight status,” for instance, may include both an intent to reserve a car and an intent to retrieve status of a user's flight)([0290]; a second application is executed based on the intent of getting a ride and telling flight status). The examiner notes both Peters and Walker teach a controlling applications based on user intent. As such, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Peters to include the executing, the accessing, and the utilizing of Walker such that a second application is executed, stored intent is accessed, and the second application is utilized to perform a second operation based on input data and the stored intent. One would be motivated to make such a combination to provide the advantage of effectively integrating application control).
Regarding claim 10, Peters-Walker teach the method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving second input data; and modifying the first intent based on the second input data (although Peters does not disclose receiving further input and modifying intent based on the further input, said receiving and modifying is taught by Walker (If a response provided by the software application does not indicate that a parameter is valid, the response may indicate that clarification of the parameter is required ... the software application may request additional input from the user)([0277]; intent is updated based on further input to correct parameters). As such, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Peters to include the receiving and the modifying of Walker such that further inputs are received and intent is updated based on the further inputs. One would be motivated to make such a combination to provide the advantage of effectively integrating application control).
Regarding system claims 11-16 and 19-20, the claims generally correspond to method claims 1-6 and 9-10, respectively, and recite similar features in system form; therefore, the claims are rejected under similar rationale.
Claims 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peters, Walker, and in further view of Mauro et al. (US20140257807A1).
Regarding claim 7, Peters-Walker teach the method as applied above, wherein input is formatted (Peters - LLMs are multimodal in that they can receive prompts in formats other than text and can produce outputs in formats other than text ... designed for understanding and generating textual data, multimodal LLMs extend this functionality)([0057]; LLMs process and format input).
Peters-Walker differs from the claim in that Peters-Walker fails to teach formatting data based on applications (i.e., translating data into appropriate application format). However, translating data into appropriate application format is taught by Mauro (Because the query can be entered in a natural language format, the query may need to be translated for the native application on which the task assistant depends. The completed query is then passed to the application)([0090]).
The examiner notes Peters, Walker, and Mauro teach a controlling applications based on user intent. As such, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Peters-Walker to include the translating of Mauro such that data is formatted based on applications. One would be motivated to make such a combination to provide the advantage of allowing user to control applications without remembering particular commands.
Regarding system claim 17, the claim generally correspond to method claim 7, and recite similar features in system form; therefore, the claim is rejected under similar rationale.
Claims 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peters, Walker, Mauro, and in further view of Richter et al. (US20100005115A1).
Regarding claim 8, Peters-Walker-Mauro teach the method as applied above, wherein data is formatted based on applications (Mauro - At block 340, the system interprets the input, translates it to the appropriate format, and sends the command to the native application)([0062]).
Peters-Walker-Mauro differs from the claim in that Peters-Walker-Mauro fails to teach using templates to format data for applications. However, formatting data for applications using templates is taught by Richter (The processor is configured to execute the functions of receiving data that is input ... The data is parsed ... the parsed data is converted to a raw data string ... the raw data string is converted to a second application ... having a second format according to the selected template ... The data conversion database can be a data storage for storing a plurality of data templates from a plurality of different computer applications)([0016] and [0023]).
The examiner notes Peters, Walker, Mauro, and Richter teach a parsing data. As such, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Peters-Walker-Mauro to include the formatting of Richter such that templates are utilized to format data for applications. One would be motivated to make such a combination to provide the advantage of ensuring application data compatibly.
Regarding system claim 18, the claim generally correspond to method claim 8, and recite similar features in system form; therefore, the claim is rejected under similar rationale.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record on form PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicant is required under 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(c) to consider the reference fully when responding to this action. The document cited therein and enumerated below teaches a method and apparatus for controlling applications based on user intent.
US20180196683A1
20180233141 A1
US20180350353A1
US20190179606A1
US20190279633A1
US20180233141A1
US20220188522A1
US20220382994A1
US20220413988A1
US20230206912A1
US20230393712A1
US20230401031A1
US20240233716A1
US7058626B1
US8863158B1
US11955120B1
US12443633B1
CN109102802A
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Yongjia Pan whose telephone number is (571)270-1177. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM 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, Scott Baderman can be reached at 571-272-3644. 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.
/YONGJIA PAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2118
Prosecution Insights