DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 of the instant application are pending and have been examined.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/13/2025, 04/15/2025, 04/17/2025, 08/15/2025, 12/31/2025, 02/04/2026, 05/22/2026, and 09/02/2026 were filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 1-20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. US 12223955 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the issued patent anticipate the claims of the instant application.
Please see below for pertinent mappings of the instant application in comparison to the issued patent.
Table 1 shows the overall claim mapping comparing equivalence between claims from instant application and issued patent.
Tables 2 and 3 show the limitations of the independent claim 1 and
10 the instant application when compared with issued patent, respectively, wherein the underlined portions indicate the main differences between instant application and issued patent.
Table 1: Overal claim mapping comparing Instant Application and Issued Patent/Copending Application.
Instant Application
Issued Patent
(US 12223955 B2)
1* and 10* + 5 and 14
1* and 12* + 6 and 14
2 and 11
3
3 and 12
Has/have no equivalent
4 and 13
Has/have no equivalent
6 and 15
7 and 15
7 and 16
8 and 16
8 and 17
9 and 17
9, 18, and 20
11
Note: * denotes an independent claim
Table 2: Independent claim mapping (comparing each of the limitations)
Instant Application
Issued Patent
(US 12223955 B2)
Independent claim 1:
Independent claim 1:
1. A method implemented by one or more processors, the method comprising:
1. A method implemented by one or more processors, the method comprising:
receiving, from a user of a client device, user input that includes an assistant command and that is directed to an automated assistant executing at least in part at the client device;
receiving, from a user of a client device, user input that includes an assistant command and that is directed to an automated assistant executing at least in part at the client device;
determining whether data to be utilized in performance of certain fulfillment of the assistant command can be determined;
in response to determining that the data to be utilized in performance of the certain fulfillment of the assistant command cannot be determined:
processing the user input to determine alternate data to be utilized in performance of alternate fulfillment of the assistant command; and
processing the user input to determine data to be utilized in performance of certain fulfillment of the assistant command;
causing the automated assistant to utilize the alternate data to perform the alternate fulfillment of the assistant command;
causing the automated assistant to utilize the data to perform the certain fulfillment of the assistant command;
receiving, from the user of the client device, additional user input that includes a request for the automated assistant to provide a certain reasoning with respect to why the automated assistant performed the alternate fulfillment of the assistant command in lieu of the certain fulfillment of the assistant command;
receiving, from the user of the client device, additional user input that includes a request for the automated assistant to provide a certain reasoning with respect to why the automated assistant performed the certain fulfillment of the assistant command,
processing the additional user input to determine additional data to be utilized in providing the certain reasoning with respect to why the automated assistant performed the alternate fulfillment of the assistant command in lieu of the certain fulfillment of the assistant command; and
processing the additional user input to determine additional data to be utilized in providing the certain reasoning with respect to why the automated assistant performed the certain fulfillment of the assistant command; and
causing the automated assistant to utilize the additional data to provide, for presentation to the user of the client device, output that includes the certain reasoning with respect to why the automated assistant performed the alternate fulfillment of the assistant command in lieu of the certain fulfillment of the assistant command.
causing the automated assistant to utilize the additional data to provide, for presentation to the user of the client device, output that includes the certain reasoning with respect to why the automated assistant performed the certain fulfillment of the assistant command.
Claim 5
Claim 1 cont’d
5. The method of claim 1,
wherein the request for the automated assistant to provide the certain reasoning with respect to why the automated assistant performed the alternate fulfillment of the assistant command in lieu of the certain fulfillment of the assistant command includes a particular request for the automated assistant to provide the certain reasoning with respect to why the automated assistant
selected an alternate software application, from among a plurality of disparate software applications, in lieu of a particular software application specified by the assistant command.
wherein the request for the automated assistant to provide the certain reasoning with respect to why the automated assistant performed the certain fulfillment of the assistant command includes a particular request for the automated assistant to provide the certain reasoning with respect to why the automated assistant:
selected a particular software application, from among a plurality of disparate software applications, utilized in performing the certain fulfillment, or selected an additional client device of the user, in lieu of the client device of the user, utilized in performing the certain fulfillment;
Note: Main differences between instant application and issued patent are underlined.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-4, 9-13, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mittal et al. (US 20200302123 A1) and further in view of Cohen et al. (US 20220392454 A1).
As to independent claim 1, Mittal et al. teaches:
1. A method implemented by one or more processors (see ¶ [0016]: “An exemplary embodiment of a method of providing an artificial intelligence conversational agent for interacting with a user may include declaratively defining a task model of a task using a task modelling language, […] interpreting the user input with a processor based on the task model and the natural language grammar, …”), the method comprising:
receiving, from a user of a client device, user input that includes an assistant command and that is directed to an automated assistant executing at least in part at the client device (see Fig. 5 (520: receives user input and 522: interpret user input) and ¶ [0134-0135]: “[0134] In block 520, the user's input is received via any one of the interfaces described herein with reference to FIG. 1… [0135] …Interpreting the user input may include parsing the input and identifying entities and/or intents using the natural language grammar, determining whether any entities in the user input are acceptable values for a parameter, assigning values to parameters, evaluating various logic rules and/or constraints in view of the user input, or determining whether the user input opens any new task models and/or parameters…”);
determining whether data to be utilized in performance of certain fulfillment of the assistant command can be determined (see Fig. 5 (520: receives user input and 522: interpret user input) and ¶ [0134-0135] citations as in limitation above. More specifically ¶ [0135]: “…Interpreting the user input may include parsing the input and identifying entities and/or intents using the natural language grammar, determining whether any entities in the user input are acceptable values for a parameter, assigning values to parameters, evaluating various logic rules and/or constraints in view of the user input, or determining whether the user input opens any new task models and/or parameters…”);
in response to determining that the data to be utilized in performance of the certain fulfillment of the assistant command cannot be determined (see ¶ [0136]: “In block 524, an agent response may be generated. In an exemplary embodiment, the agent response may be an acknowledgement of the user input, a prompt for further input, a response to a user question, or an explanation of why a particular input was invalid…”):
processing the user input to determine alternate data to be utilized in performance of alternate fulfillment of the assistant command (see ¶ [0136] citation as in limitation above and further ¶ [0138]: “On the other hand, consider a situation where the user incorrectly initiated an interaction with a restaurant conversational agent and inputs a statement such as “I want to buy flowers.” In this situation, the processor, using the natural language grammar, may determine that none of the words in the user input are an acceptable input for any of the open parameters. Accordingly, the method may proceed from the block 570 to the block 524, i.e., following the “no” branch at block 570. In the block 524, the agent may generate an agent response explaining that the user's input does not appear to be relevant to placing an order at the restaurant, and then prompt for further input, such as querying whether the user would like to place an order for food or drink. In other words, in response to a determination that the user input does not include the user-defined parameter value, an explanation of why the user input is not relevant to the required parameter is generated, and/or a prompt to enter the user-defined parameter value may be entered.”); and
causing the automated assistant to utilize the alternate data to perform the alternate fulfillment of the assistant command (see ¶ [0138] citation as in limitation above: “flowers” [Wingdings font/0xE0] “food or drink”);
However, Mittal et al. does not explicitly teach, but Cohen et al. does teach:
receiving, from the user of the client device, additional user input that includes a request for the automated assistant to provide a certain reasoning with respect to why the automated assistant performed the alternate fulfillment of the assistant command in lieu of the certain fulfillment of the assistant command (see ¶ [0166-0173]: “[0166] In reference to the above, the exemplary dialogue system presented can explain its utterances in terms of its and its interlocutor(s)'s beliefs, goals, and intentions. All actions that the system takes are explainable because every action the system performs (or is planned for another agent to perform) has been intended and is part of an overall plan. The action is performed in order to achieve its effect E.sub.1, which may enable another action A.sub.2 by making its precondition true. This may result in a chain of achieves/enables relations A.sub.1.fwdarw.E.sub.1.fwdarw.A.sub.2.fwdarw.E.sub.2.fwdarw. . . . A.sub.n. Accordingly, if the user asks why action A.sub.1 was performed, an explanation could be: “In order to perform A.sub.2” or, “in order to perform A.sub.n”. This works just as well for actions with other agents, for example: [0167] “In order that you be able to perform A.sub.2, . . . ” [0168] The same approach works for communicative actions and physical actions. [0169] E.g., “Why did you say/ask that?” [0170] Note that the intermediate goal states (i.e., E.sub.1, E.sub.2, E.sub.n, etc.) can also be part of an explanation. [0171] “Why did you ask X?” “Because I needed to know X in order to perform action A.” [0172] A similar process can be used for explaining conclusions: [0173] “Why did you ask my occupation?” “Because knowing your occupation enables me to determine if you are an essential worker.””);
processing the additional user input to determine additional data to be utilized in providing the certain reasoning with respect to why the automated assistant performed the alternate fulfillment of the assistant command in lieu of the certain fulfillment of the assistant command (see ¶ [0166-0173] citations as in limitation above and further ¶[0185]: “The dialogue system is configured to generate an explanation for an utterance, such as a response to “why did you say/ask that” based on the system plan, which includes physical, digital, and communicative actions, as well as the formulas they achieve and that enable them to be performed. The dialogue system may proactively generate a rationale for the system communicative actions, for example, generating “so” or “because” via the plan before being asked for an explanation.”); and
causing the automated assistant to utilize the additional data to provide, for presentation to the user of the client device, output that includes the certain reasoning with respect to why the automated assistant performed the alternate fulfillment of the assistant command in lieu of the certain fulfillment of the assistant command (see ¶ [0166-0173] and ¶ [0185] citations as in limitation above, more specifically: “…[0171] “Why did you ask X?” “Because I needed to know X in order to perform action A.” [0172] A similar process can be used for explaining conclusions: [0173] “Why did you ask my occupation?” “Because knowing your occupation enables me to determine if you are an essential worker.””).
Mittal et al. and Cohen et al. are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor in speech and language processing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mittal et al. to incorporate the teachings of Cohen et al. of receiving, from the user of the client device, additional user input that includes a request for the automated assistant to provide a certain reasoning with respect to why the automated assistant performed the alternate fulfillment of the assistant command in lieu of the certain fulfillment of the assistant command; processing the additional user input to determine additional data to be utilized in providing the certain reasoning with respect to why the automated assistant performed the alternate fulfillment of the assistant command in lieu of the certain fulfillment of the assistant command; and causing the automated assistant to utilize the additional data to provide, for presentation to the user of the client device, output that includes the certain reasoning with respect to why the automated assistant performed the alternate fulfillment of the assistant command in lieu of the certain fulfillment of the assistant command which provides the benefit of having a successful multi-modality platform associated with relevant results ([0236] of Cohen et al.).
As to independent claim 10, Mittal et al. teaches:
10. A system (see ¶ [0017]: “An exemplary embodiment of an artificial intelligence conversational system for interacting with a user to complete a task may include a processor and a computer-readable storage medium operably connected to the processor…”) comprising:
at least one processor (see ¶ [0017]: “processor”); and
memory storing instructions that, when executed, cause the at least one processor to be operable (see ¶ [0017] citations as in limitation above and further ¶ [0039]: “… program modules may be located in both local and remote computer storage media including memory storage devices…”) to:
[perform the limitations as in claim 1 and taught by Mittal et al. in combination with Cohen et al., above].
As to independent claim 19, Mittal et al. teaches:
19. A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions that, when executed, cause at least one processor to execute the instructions (see ¶ [0017]: “An exemplary embodiment of an artificial intelligence conversational system for interacting with a user to complete a task may include a processor and a computer-readable storage medium operably connected to the processor…”) to:
[perform the limitations as in claim 1 and taught by Mittal et al. in combination with Cohen et al., above].
Regarding claims 2 and 11, Mittal et al. in combination with Cohen et al. teaches the limitations as in claim 1 and 9, above.
Cohen et al. further teaches:
2 and 11. The method/system of claims 1 and 9,
wherein processing the additional user input to determine the additional data to be utilized in providing the certain reasoning with respect to why the automated assistant performed the alternate fulfillment of the assistant command in lieu of the certain fulfillment of the assistant command (see ¶ [0166-0173] citations as in claim 1 above.) further comprises:
processing the additional user input to generate recommendation data to be utilized in generating a recommended action with respect to how the automated assistant can perform the certain fulfillment of the assistant command (see ¶ [0166-0173 and 0185] citations as in claim 1 above, more specifically ¶ [0185]: “The dialogue system is configured to generate an explanation for an utterance, such as a response to “why did you say/ask that” based on the system plan, which includes physical, digital, and communicative actions, as well as the formulas they achieve and that enable them to be performed. The dialogue system may proactively generate a rationale for the system communicative actions, for example, generating “so” or “because” via the plan before being asked for an explanation.”).
Mittal et al. and Cohen et al. are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor in speech and language processing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mittal et al. to incorporate the teachings of Cohen et al. of wherein processing the additional user input to determine the additional data to be utilized in providing the certain reasoning with respect to why the automated assistant performed the alternate fulfillment of the assistant command in lieu of the certain fulfillment of the assistant command further comprises: processing the additional user input to generate recommendation data to be utilized in generating a recommended action with respect to how the automated assistant can perform the certain fulfillment of the assistant command which provides the benefit of having a successful multi-modality platform associated with relevant results ([0236] of Cohen et al.).
Regarding claims 3 and 12, Mittal et al. in combination with Cohen et al. teaches the limitations as in claim 2 and 11, above.
Cohen et al. further teaches:
3 and 12. The method/system of claims 2 and 11,
wherein the output further includes the recommended action with respect to how the automated assistant can enable the certain fulfillment of the assistant command (see ¶ [0168-0173]: “[0168] The same approach works for communicative actions and physical actions. [0169] E.g., “Why did you say/ask that?” [0170] Note that the intermediate goal states (i.e., E.sub.1, E.sub.2, E.sub.n, etc.) can also be part of an explanation. [0171] “Why did you ask X?” “Because I needed to know X in order to perform action A.” [0172] A similar process can be used for explaining conclusions: [0173] “Why did you ask my occupation?” “Because knowing your occupation enables me to determine if you are an essential worker.””).
Mittal et al. and Cohen et al. are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor in speech and language processing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mittal et al. to incorporate the teachings of Cohen et al. of wherein the output further includes the recommended action with respect to how the automated assistant can enable the certain fulfillment of the assistant command which provides the benefit of having a successful multi-modality platform associated with relevant results ([0236] of Cohen et al.).
Regarding claims 4 and 13, Mittal et al. in combination with Cohen et al. teaches the limitations as in claim 3 and 12, above.
Cohen et al. further teaches:
4 and 13. The method/system of claims 3 and 12,
wherein the recommended action includes a prompt that, when selected, causes the automated assistant to perform the recommended action as the alternate fulfillment (see ¶ [0166-0173 and 0185] citations as in claim 1 above and further ¶ [0181-0182]: “[0181] … . In an example, a system may ask “how old are you?,” which may be a realization of the yes-no question speech act WH-Q. “How old are you?” is a WH-Q. The explanation for the question is that the system asked the question in order to know whether or not (i.e., KNOWIF) the user is eligible for a vaccine, which enables the system to make an appointment for the User… [0182] The linguistic explanation is thus: “I asked the question because I needed to know whether you are eligible for a covid vaccine in order to make an appointment for you at a vaccine center.”… ”).
Mittal et al. and Cohen et al. are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor in speech and language processing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mittal et al. to incorporate the teachings of Cohen et al. of wherein the recommended action includes a prompt that, when selected, causes the automated assistant to perform the recommended action as the alternate fulfillment which provides the benefit of having a successful multi-modality platform associated with relevant results ([0236] of Cohen et al.).
Regarding claims 9, 18, and 20, Mittal et al. in combination with Cohen et al. teaches the limitations as in claim 1, 9, and 19 above.
Cohen et al. further teaches:
9, 18, and 20. The method/system/CRM of claims 1, 9, and 19,
wherein causing the automated assistant to utilize the additional data to provide, for presentation to the user of the client device, the output that includes the certain reasoning with respect to why the automated assistant performed the alternate fulfillment of the assistant command in lieu of the certain fulfillment of the assistant command (see ¶ [0166-0173] and ¶ [0185] citations as in claim 1, above.) comprises:
causing the output that includes the certain reasoning with respect to why the automated assistant performed the alternate fulfillment of the assistant command in lieu of the certain fulfillment of the assistant command to be visually rendered for presentation to the user via a display of the client device (see ¶ [0166-0173] and ¶ [0185] citations as in claim 1 above, more specifically: “…[0171] “Why did you ask X?” “Because I needed to know X in order to perform action A.” [0172] A similar process can be used for explaining conclusions: [0173] “Why did you ask my occupation?” “Because knowing your occupation enables me to determine if you are an essential worker.”” and further ¶ [0044]: “[0044] FIG. 4 is an illustration of an example of a collaborative dialogue 400 between a user and a system. The system may be a computing device, such as computing device 200 shown in FIG. 2. In this example, the collaborative dialogue 400 includes a user utterance 410, a first system utterance 420, a second user utterance 430, and a third system utterance 440. In this example, the collaborative dialogue 400 begins with the user utterance 410 “Where is the nearest covid vaccination site?” The system responds to user utterance 410 with the first system utterance 420 “The nearest site is 130 Main Street, 3 miles away, but they have no vaccine.” …” and ¶ [0177]: “…Based on the actions of plan execution, the dialogue manager 740 generates the response to multimodal inputs of the user by producing the multimodal content 770 that is rendered by one or more presentation tools like Text-To-Speech (TTS) 780, a graphic or display 790, robot, or the like. The dialogue manager also controls the overall dialogue flow…”); and/or
causing the output that includes the certain reasoning with respect to why the automated assistant performed the alternate fulfillment of the assistant command in lieu of the certain fulfillment of the assistant command to be audibly rendered for presentation to the user via one or more speakers of the client device (see ¶ [0166-0173] and ¶ [0185] citations as in claim 1 above and further ¶ [0044 and 0177] citations as in limitation above.).
Mittal et al. and Cohen et al. are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor in speech and language processing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mittal et al. to incorporate the teachings of Cohen et al. of causing the output that includes the certain reasoning with respect to why the automated assistant performed the alternate fulfillment of the assistant command in lieu of the certain fulfillment of the assistant command to be visually rendered for presentation to the user via a display of the client device; and/or causing the output that includes the certain reasoning with respect to why the automated assistant performed the alternate fulfillment of the assistant command in lieu of the certain fulfillment of the assistant command to be audibly rendered for presentation to the user via one or more speakers of the client device which provides the benefit of having a successful multi-modality platform associated with relevant results ([0236] of Cohen et al.).
Claim5-6 and 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mittal et al. (US 20200302123 A1) and further in view of Cohen et al. (US 20220392454 A1) as applied to claims 3 and 12, above and further in view of Frank et al (US 20140149177 A1).
Regarding claims 5 and 14, Mittal et al. in combination with Cohen et al. teaches the limitations as in claim 3 and 12, above.
Cohen et al. further teaches:
5 and 14. The method/system of claims 1 and 9,
wherein the request for the automated assistant to provide the certain reasoning with respect to why the automated assistant performed the alternate fulfillment of the assistant command in lieu of the certain fulfillment of the assistant command (see ¶ [0166-0173] citations as in claim 1, above.) includes
Mittal et al. and Cohen et al. are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor in speech and language processing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mittal et al. to incorporate the teachings of Cohen et al. of wherein the request for the automated assistant to provide the certain reasoning with respect to why the automated assistant performed the alternate fulfillment of the assistant command in lieu of the certain fulfillment of the assistant command which provides the benefit of having a successful multi-modality platform associated with relevant results ([0236] of Cohen et al.).
However, Mittal et al. in combination with Cohen et al. does not explicitly teach, but Frank et al. does teach:
a particular request for the automated assistant to provide the certain reasoning with respect to why the automated assistant selected an alternate software application, from among a plurality of disparate software applications, in lieu of a particular software application specified by the assistant command (see Fig. 5 and ¶ [0086 and 0311]: “[0086] Presenting the information related to the prior experience may be done for one or more of a variety of reasons. In one embodiment, a reason for presenting the information related to the prior experience to the user is to explain a choice of the future experience. For example, to explain its selection of an activity, a software agent may remind a user of a similar activity that the user enjoyed in the past, and thus the user is likely to enjoy the current future experience. [0311] In step 528, generating an explanation of relevancy of the experience to the user based on the prior experience.”).
Mittal et al., Cohen et al., and Frank et al. are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor in speech and language processing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mittal et al. in combination with Cohen et al. to incorporate the teachings of Frank et al. of a particular request for the automated assistant to provide the certain reasoning with respect to why the automated assistant selected an alternate software application, from among a plurality of disparate software applications, in lieu of a particular software application specified by the assistant command which provides the benefit of improving future choices of experiences for the user ([0087] of Frank et al.).
Regarding claims 6 and 15, Mittal et al. in combination with Cohen et al. and Frank et al. teaches the limitations as in claim 5 and 14, above.
Cohen et al. further teaches:
6 and 15. The method/system of claims 5 and 14,
wherein processing the additional user input to determine additional data to be utilized in providing the certain reasoning with respect to why the automated assistant performed the alternate fulfillment of the assistant command in lieu of the certain fulfillment of the assistant command (see ¶ [0166-0173 and 0185] citations as in claim 1 above) comprises:
Mittal et al. and Cohen et al. are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor in speech and language processing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mittal et al. to incorporate the teachings of Cohen et al. of wherein processing the additional user input to determine additional data to be utilized in providing the certain reasoning with respect to why the automated assistant performed the alternate fulfillment of the assistant command in lieu of the certain fulfillment of the assistant command which provides the benefit of having a successful multi-modality platform associated with relevant results ([0236] of Cohen et al.).
Frank et al. further teaches:
obtaining metadata associated with the particular software application specified by the assistant command and/or associated with the alternate software application (see ¶ [0086 and 0311] citations as in limitation above and further ¶ [0095]: “In one embodiment, an experience may come with at least some of the token instances that may be used to describe it. Optionally, the provided token instances come in the form of meta-data. Optionally, token instances that come with the experience may be manually created. Alternatively or additionally, token instances that come with the experience are generated automatically by algorithms (e.g., via automatic analysis of content). In one example, video content may come with token instance annotations the describe various aspects of the content, such as which characters appear, when they appear, which character performs actions and/or talks at a given time, a segmentation of the content into scenes, statistics regarding different scenes (e.g., sound energy, color scheme, transition rates between shots). In another example, a description of a prospective activity such as an invitation to a party may have accompanying meta-information that may be used as token instances such as the location and time of the party, who is expected to participate, the type of music that will be played, and/or the type of food and beverages that will be served.”); and
determining, based on the metadata associated with the particular software application specified by the assistant command and/or associated with the alternate software application, the additional data to be utilized in providing the certain reasoning with respect to why the automated assistant performed the alternate fulfillment of the assistant command in lieu of the certain fulfillment of the assistant command (see ¶ [0086 and 0311] citations as in claims 5 and 14 and in limitation above.).
Mittal et al., Cohen et al., and Frank et al. are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor in speech and language processing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mittal et al. in combination with Cohen et al. to incorporate the teachings of Frank et al. of obtaining metadata associated with the particular software application specified by the assistant command and/or associated with the alternate software application; and determining, based on the metadata associated with the particular software application specified by the assistant command and/or associated with the alternate software application, the additional data to be utilized in providing the certain reasoning with respect to why the automated assistant performed the alternate fulfillment of the assistant command in lieu of the certain fulfillment of the assistant command which provides the benefit of improving future choices of experiences for the user ([0087] of Frank et al.).
Claims 7-8 and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mittal et al. (US 20200302123 A1) and further in view of Cohen et al. (US 20220392454 A1) as applied to claims 3 and 12, above and further in view of Chavez et al (US 9769319 A1).
Regarding claim 7 and 16, Mittal et al. in combination with Cohen et al. teaches the limitations as in claim 1 and 9, above.
Cohen et al. further teaches:
7 and 16. The method/system of claims 1 and 9,
wherein the request for the automated assistant to provide the certain reasoning with respect to why the automated assistant performed the alternate fulfillment of the assistant command in lieu of the certain fulfillment of the assistant command (see ¶ [0166-0173] citations as in claim 1, above.) includes
Mittal et al. and Cohen et al. are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor in speech and language processing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mittal et al. to incorporate the teachings of Cohen et al. of wherein the request for the automated assistant to provide the certain reasoning with respect to why the automated assistant performed the alternate fulfillment of the assistant command in lieu of the certain fulfillment of the assistant command which provides the benefit of having a successful multi-modality platform associated with relevant results ([0236] of Cohen et al.).
However, Mittal et al. in combination with Cohen et al. does not explicitly teach, but Chavez et al. does teach:
a particular request for the automated assistant to provide the certain reasoning with respect to why the automated assistant selected an alternate computing device of the user, from among a plurality of computing devices of the user, in lieu of a particular computing device specified by the assistant command (see Fig. 7 and ¶ col. 13, lines 10-23: “(55) In block 708, the presence agent 180 receives the selection and rationale for the selection and generates and sends to the selected communication device an INVITE 808 including a presence and availability attachment. The presence and availability attachment includes the scheduling information associated with the conference call, required media capabilities for the conference call, and/or rationale, or reason(s), why the communication device was selected. Although FIG. 6 shows the scheduling request for the conference call being received and the INVITE generated by the communications server 120, it is to be understood that the request may be received and INVITE generated by a communication device.” and ¶ col. 14, lines 9-19: “(62) Regardless of the response selected, the presence agent 180, in block 736 generates and sends an appropriate response to the proper entity. The response normally includes a presence and availability attachment providing, as appropriate, a rationale for the decision made by the presence agent, updated presence and availability information (e.g., providing updated presence information, scheduling information, and/or user preferences), (current) media capabilities of the corresponding communication device, and any indications given directly by the user (accepted, provisionally accepted, rejected, etc.)…”).
Mittal et al., Cohen et al., and Chavez et al. are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor in speech and language processing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mittal et al. in combination with Cohen et al. to incorporate the teachings of Chavez et al. of a particular request for the automated assistant to provide the certain reasoning with respect to why the automated assistant selected an alternate computing device of the user, from among a plurality of computing devices of the user, in lieu of a particular computing device specified by the assistant command which provides the benefit of improving performance, achieving ease and\or reducing cost of implementation (col. 17, lines 13-14 of Chavez et al.).
Regarding claim 8 and 17, Mittal et al. in combination with Cohen et al. teaches the limitations as in claim 1 and 9, above.
Cohen et al. further teaches:
8 and 17. The method/system of claims 7 and 16,
wherein processing the additional user input to determine additional data to be utilized in providing the certain reasoning with respect to why the automated assistant performed the alternate fulfillment of the assistant command in lieu of the certain fulfillment of the assistant command (see ¶ [0166-0173] citations as in limitation above”) comprises:
Mittal et al. and Cohen et al. are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor in speech and language processing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mittal et al. to incorporate the teachings of Cohen et al. of wherein the request for the automated assistant to provide the certain reasoning with respect to why the automated assistant performed the alternate fulfillment of the assistant command in lieu of the certain fulfillment of the assistant command which provides the benefit of having a successful multi-modality platform associated with relevant results ([0236] of Cohen et al.).
However, Mittal et al. in combination with Cohen et al. does not explicitly teach, but Chavez et al. does teach:
obtaining metadata associated with the particular computing device specified by the assistant command and/or associated with the alternate computing device (see Fig. 7 and ¶ col. 13, lines 10-23 citations from claims 7 and 16 and further ¶ col. 7, lines 25-56: “The presence services 112a-m each include a presence server 154 and an associated presence information database 158 that may or may not be operated by the enterprise network. Each of the presence servers 154 and presence information databases 158 collectively track the presence and/or availability of presence service subscribers and/or their communication devices and provide, to requesting entities, current presence information respecting selected presence service subscribers. “Presence information” refers to any information associated with a network node and/or endpoint device, such as a communication device, that is in turn associated with a person or identity. Presence information can indicate user status (e.g., online or offline), user availability (e.g., available, busy, on the phone, or out to lunch), user's desired contact means (e.g., instant messaging, circuit-switched telephone, packet-switched telephone, cell phone, pager, etc.) that may vary by contactor identity and/or contact time, and at what endpoint a contactor is most likely to reach successfully the presence service subscriber. Presence information can span a number of different communication channels.”); and
determining, based on the metadata associated with the particular computing device specified by the assistant command and/or associated with the alternate computing device, the additional data to be utilized in providing the certain reasoning with respect to why the automated assistant performed the alternate fulfillment of the assistant command in lieu of the certain fulfillment of the assistant command (see Fig. 7 and ¶ col. 13, lines 10-23 citations from claims 7 and 16 and further ¶ col. 7, lines 25-56 citations as in limitation above. More specifically: “The presence services 112a-m each include a presence server 154 and an associated presence information database 158 that may or may not be operated by the enterprise network. Each of the presence servers 154 and presence information databases 158 collectively track the presence and/or availability of presence service subscribers and/or their communication devices and provide, to requesting entities, current presence information respecting selected presence service subscribers. “Presence information” refers to any information associated with a network node and/or endpoint device, …”).
Mittal et al., Cohen et al., and Chavez et al. are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor in speech and language processing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mittal et al. in combination with Cohen et al. to incorporate the teachings of Chavez et al. of obtaining metadata associated with the particular computing device specified by the assistant command and/or associated with the alternate computing device; and determining, based on the metadata associated with the particular computing device specified by the assistant command and/or associated with the alternate computing device, the additional data to be utilized in providing the certain reasoning with respect to why the automated assistant performed the alternate fulfillment of the assistant command in lieu of the certain fulfillment of the assistant command which provides the benefit of improving performance, achieving ease and\or reducing cost of implementation (col. 17, lines 13-14 of Chavez et al.).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Keisha Y Castillo-Torres whose telephone number is (571)272-3975. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 am - 4:00 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, Pierre-Louis Desir can be reached at (571)272-7799. 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.
Keisha Y. Castillo-Torres
Examiner
Art Unit 2659
/Keisha Y. Castillo-Torres/Examiner, Art Unit 2659
Prosecution Insights