DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. This office action is responsive to the Applicant’s amendment filed on 2/10/2026. Claims 1, 6-7, 9-14, 16-17, and 20 have been amended. Claim 8 has been canceled. Claims 1-4, 6-7, 9-18, and 20 are pending and will be considered for examination.
3. In light of applicant’s amendments to the title submitted on 2/10/2026, the objection to the specification is withdrawn.
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.
4. Claims 1-2, 6, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2018/0293220 A1) in view of Kim et al. (US 2019/0026074 A1) and further in view of Badjatiya et al. (US 20250335775 A1).
As in Claim 1, Lee teaches a computer-implemented method, comprising:
displaying a desktop or an interface of a running application (see FIG. 3 and 12A-12D, a user terminal 100 display a desktop);
presenting, in response to receiving a wake-up operation from a user, an interface of a launcher via the desktop or the interface of the running application (see FIG. 3 and 12A-12D, pars.86-87, 199-205, the electronic device 100 may invoke an user interface of an intelligent application with receiving user input (e.g., a wake-up utterance or pressing a key 112), wherein the user interface (UI) 121 displays a plurality of hints/suggestions as generative functions; further see pars. 138-148).
Lee does not appear to explicitly teach displaying a plurality of generative functions on the interface of the launcher, wherein each of the plurality of generative functions is configured to implement a particular function, each of the plurality of generative functions has a corresponding interface configured to receive user input and display data associated with implementing the particular function, and a plurality of interfaces corresponding to the plurality of generative functions are different from each other; receiving input from the user in an input box of the launcher without selection of a specific generative function from the plurality of generative functions; determining, based on the input, an intent associated with the input, wherein the intent comprises at least one of an artificial intelligence generation intent, a search engine query intent, or a local resource access intent; determining a first generative function from the plurality of generative functions that corresponds to the intent; and generating an output corresponding to the input utilizing the first generative function.
However, in the same field of the invention, Kim teaches displaying a plurality of generative functions on the interface of the launcher (see FIGS. 5-6, pars. 103-113, the device can provide a number of hits (e.g., a first hint 512, a second hint 514, and a third hint 516 in Fig. 5 and or a first hint 612, a second hint 614, and a third hint 616 ) on a user interface as shown in FIG. 5 ), wherein each of the plurality of generative functions is configured to implement a particular function, each of the plurality of generative functions has a corresponding interface configured to receive user input and display data associated with implementing the particular function, and a plurality of interfaces corresponding to the plurality of generative functions are different from each other (see FIGS. 5-6, pars. 103-113, each of the hits can implement a particular function (e.g., “find connectable Wi-Fi networks around me”, “show me the recent document”, “play music” in FIG. 5 or “search for the recently captured picture”, “show me the monthly calendar”, and “launch a message application” in FIG. 6, and each of the function has a corresponding interface for receiving inputs related to the function).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system and method for displaying the intelligent application including hints upon receiving the wake-up input, as taught by Lee, and to provide the list of generative hints for corresponding functions with interfaces, as taught by Kim. The motivation is to allow users to easily view relevant options or controls related to the selected hints or functions, ensuring the interface aligns with the user’s choice.
Lee and Kim do not teach receiving input from the user in an input box of the launcher without selection of a specific generative function from the plurality of generative functions; determining, based on the input, an intent associated with the input, wherein the intent comprises at least one of an artificial intelligence generation intent, a search engine query intent, or a local resource access intent; determining a first generative function from the plurality of generative functions that corresponds to the intent; and generating an output corresponding to the input utilizing the first generative function
However, in the same field of the invention, Badjatiya teaches receiving input from the user in an input box of the launcher without selection of a specific generative function from the plurality of generative functions (FIG. 8, pars. 81-90; the system receives a query, exemplified by “Amsterdam” 804 in a search bar 802; further see pars. 30-31);
determining, based on the input, an intent associated with the input, wherein the intent comprises at least one of an artificial intelligence generation intent, a search engine query intent, or a local resource access intent (FIG. 8, pars. 81-90, the system can determine multiple possible user intents from the search query);
determining a first generative function from the plurality of generative functions that corresponds to the intent (FIG. 8, pars. 32, 81-90, the system generates the conventional search results 806A through 806-D with an embedded prompt builder interface 808 comprising various intent indicators 810, which are generated by intent generation model); and
generating an output corresponding to the input utilizing the first generative function (FIG. 8, pars. 32, 81-90).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system and method for displaying the intelligent application including hints upon receiving the wake-up input, as taught by Lee, in view of Kim’s teachings, and to provide the intent indicator as the generative functions after receiving the search query, as taught by Badjatiya. The motivation is to enable users to quickly select intent indicators close to their goal, thereby producing more precise, relevant, and AI-enhanced responses or actions.
As in Claim 2, Lee-Kim-Badjatiya teaches all the limitations of Claim 1. Lee-Kim-Badjatiya further teaches that the wake-up operation comprises: the user triggering a shortcut key associated with the launcher, the user inputting voice for invoking the launcher, a specific gesture of the user, or another predefined operation for invoking the launcher (Lee, see FIG. 3 and 12A-12D, pars.86-87, 199-205, the electronic device 100 invokes the user interface of the AI application with the user input (e.g., a wake-up utterance or pressing a key 112)).
As in Claim 6, Lee-Kim-Badjatiya teaches all the limitations of Claim 5. Lee-Kim-Badjatiya further teaches that prompt information associated with the first generative function is displayed as a placeholder in the input box (Lee, see FIG. 3 and 12A-12D).
Claims 16 and 17 are substantially similar to Claim 1 and rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 18 is substantially similar to Claim 2 and rejected under the same rationale.
5. Claim 3 is are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2018/0293220 A1) in view of Kim et al. (US 2019/0026074 A1) in view of Badjatiya et al. (US 20250335775 A1) and further in view of Wilson et al. (US 2024/0402892 A1).
As in Claim 3, Lee-Kim-Badjatiya teaches all the limitations of Claim 1. Lee-Kim-Badjatiya does not teach that the running application comprises any application running on an operating system of the computer.
However, in the same filed of the invention, Wilson teaches that the running application comprises any application running on an operating system of the computer (see at least pars. 65-66, 117, 128, 193, an application running on the device includes any software application that operates within the environment provided by the operating system).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system and method for displaying the intelligent application including hints upon receiving the wake-up input, as taught by Lee, in view of Kim’s and Badjatiya’s teachings, and to provide the running application comprises the operating system, as taught by Wilson. The motivation is to efficiently manage hardware resources and provide essential services apps need to function.
6. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2018/0293220 A1) in view of Kim et al. (US 2019/0026074 A1) in view of Badjatiya et al. (US 20250335775 A1) and further in view of Chen et al. (US 2017/0329478 A1).
As in Claim 4, Lee-Kim-Badjatiya teaches all the limitations of Claim 1 Lee-Kim-Badjatiya does not teach that the interface of the launcher has a predetermined size, and wherein the plurality of generative functions are displayed in a collapsed or scrolling manner based on the predetermined size.
However, in the same filed of the invention, Chen teaches that the interface of the launcher has a predetermined size, and wherein the plurality of generative functions are displayed in a collapsed or scrolling manner based on the predetermined size (see at least FIGS. 1A or 1H, or 1B or 1C, and 1G or 1A and pars. 27-28, a search interface, 114 or 140, is displayed in a fixed size at the upper portion of the screen/page, which may include additional configuration options, such as three small dots).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system and method for displaying the intelligent application including hints upon receiving the wake-up input, as taught by Lee, in view of Kim’s and Badjatiya’s teachings, and to provide the additional options in the search input interface in the collapsed manner, as taught by Chen. The motivation is to efficiently manage space by keeping the input are clear and offering additional options in a collapsed format.
7. Claims 7, 15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2018/0293220 A1) in view of Kim et al. (US 2019/0026074 A1) in view of Badjatiya et al. (US 20250335775 A1) and further in view of Kozlov et al. (US 2017/0091211 A1).
As in Claim 7, Lee-Kim-Badjatiya teaches all the limitations of Claim 1. Lee-Kim-Badjatiya further teaches wherein generating the output corresponding to the input utilizing the first generative function (Badjatiya, FIG. 8, pars. 32, 81-90, the intent indicators 810 in the prompt builder interface 808).
Lee-Kim-Badjatiya does not teach performing a query based on the input to generate the output, wherein the query comprises at least one of the following: a local query for a local file or a local application in the computer, a large language model query that uses a specific desktop application associated with the launcher, or a query that uses at least one search engine.
However, in the same filed of the invention, Kozlov teaches performing a query based on the input to generate the output, wherein the query comprises at least one of the following: a local query for a local file or a local application in the computer, a large language model query that uses a specific desktop application associated with the launcher, or a query that uses at least one search engine (see FIGS. 6-8, pars. 66-68, 71-81, a query uses at least one search engine).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system and method for displaying the intelligent application including hints upon receiving the wake-up input, as taught by Lee, in view of Kim’s and Badjatiya’s teachings, and to provide the results based on the user input information, as taught by Kozlo. The motivation is to keep the interaction focused and efficient, ensuring the AI provides relevant and tailored responses based on the user’s inputs.
As in Claim 15, Lee-Kim-Badjatiya and Kozlov teaches all the limitations of Claim 7. Lee-Kim-Badjatiya and Kozlov teaches further teaches that the specific desktop application is implemented as at least one of the following: a dedicated browser application, a specific plug-in in the at least one search engine, or a specific web page (Kozlov, at least pars. 3-4, 60, a browser application, search engine for web sites or web page; further see pars. 3-4).
Claim 20 is substantially similar to Claim 7 and rejected under the same rationale.
8. Claim 9 is are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Lee et al. (US 2018/0293220 A1) in view of Kim et al. (US 2019/0026074 A1) in view of Badjatiya et al. (US 20250335775 A1) and further in view of Sejnoha et al. (US 2012/0059813 A1).
As in Claim 9, Lee-Kim-Badjatiya teaches all the limitations of Claim 7. Lee-Kim-Badjatiya does not teach that the specific desktop application comprises a personal database, and wherein generating the output comprises: using the input and content of the personal database as part of input data of a large language model to obtain the output.
However, in the same filed of the invention, Sejnoha teaches that the specific desktop application comprises a personal database, and wherein generating the output comprises:
using the input and content of the personal database as part of input data of a large language model to obtain the output (at least pars. 76-77, 81, Specific websites or web browsers can collect user information (e.g., historical data on the content of web pages), which can be applied to language models to improve the relevance of search results; further see pars. 7-9, 27-30, 91-92, 102, 122-125).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system and method for displaying the intelligent application including hints upon receiving the wake-up input, as taught by Lee, in view of Kim’s and Badjatiya’s teachings, and to present the search results based on the user’s information on the content, as taught by Sejnoha. The motivation is to improve the relevance and accuracy of search results by tailoring them to the user's preferences and past behavior.
9. Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2018/0293220 A1) in view of Kim et al. (US 2019/0026074 A1) in view of Badjatiya et al. (US 20250335775 A1) and further in view of Kamvar et al. (US 2009/0327235 A1).
As in Claim 10, Lee-Kim-Badjatiya teaches all the limitations of Claim 7. Lee-Kim-Badjatiya does not teach that the output comprises a plurality of entries, and the plurality of entries are arranged in order based on a location of the query.
However, in the same filed of the invention, Kamvar teaches that the output comprises a plurality of entries, and the plurality of entries are arranged in order based on a location of the query. (FIG. 7, pars. 48-53, the search results are arranged in order within the select box 706 based on the location of the query 'Bri', which was entered into the search entry box 702 in the browser toolbar 704, as shown in FIG. 7.).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system and method for displaying the intelligent application including hints upon receiving the wake-up input, as taught by Lee, in view of Kim’s and Badjatiya’s teachings, and to display the search results in order based on the location of the query, as taught by Kamvar. The motivation is to efficiently align with the input box, ensuring a natural, intuitive flow and better use of vertical space.
As in Claim 11, Lee-Kim-Badjatiya teaches all the limitations of Claim 7. Lee-Kim-Badjatiya does not teach that the output comprises a plurality of entries, and the plurality of entries comprise at least one of the following parts: a first part based on the local query; a second part based on the large language model query; and a third part based on the query that uses the at least one search engine.
However, in the same filed of the invention, Kamvar teaches that the output comprises a plurality of entries, and the plurality of entries comprise at least one of the following parts: a first part based on the local query; a second part based on the large language model query; and a third part based on the query that uses the at least one search engine (FIG. 7, pars. 48-53, the search results are based on the query that uses at least one search engine, such as engine 130; further see pars. 19-20, 29-30, 35-38).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system and method for displaying the intelligent application including hints upon receiving the wake-up input, as taught by Lee, in view of Kim’s and Badjatiya’s teachings, and to provide the search results using the search engine, as taught by Kamvar. The motivation is to quickly deliver relevant results to the user’s query using the search engine’s capabilities.
As in Claim 12, Lee-Kim-Badjatiya teaches all the limitations of Claim 7. Lee-Kim-Badjatiya does not teach displaying the output by at least one of the following: displaying the output in the interface of the launcher; or calling the specific desktop application to display the output in the desktop application.
However, in the same filed of the invention, Kamvar teaches displaying the output by at least one of the following: displaying the output in the interface of the launcher; or calling the specific desktop application to display the output in the desktop application. (see FIG. 7, pars. 48-49, the search results are displayed in the search box/region/interface).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system and method for displaying the intelligent application including hints upon receiving the wake-up input, as taught by Lee, in view of Kim’s and Badjatiya’s teachings, and to present the search results in the search box/interface, as taught by Kamvar. The motivation is to keep the user focused by display results within the search interface for a seamless experience.
10. Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2018/0293220 A1) in view of Kim et al. (US 2019/0026074 A1) in view of Badjatiya et al. (US 20250335775 A1) in view of Kamvar et al. (US 2009/0327235 A1) and further in view of Bridges et al. (US 2007/0156648 A1).
As in Claim 13, Lee-Kim-Badjatiya and Kamvar teach all the limitations of Claim 12. Lee-Kim-Badjatiya and Kamvar do not teach displaying, in association with the output, at least one of the following: a copy button, a regenerate button, or a cancel button
However, in the same filed of the invention, Bridges teaches displaying, in association with the output, at least one of the following: a copy button, a regenerate button, or a cancel button (FIG. 11, par. 49, in the search results, the system provides a cancel button to return to the previous screen).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system and method for displaying the intelligent application including hints upon receiving the wake-up input, as taught by Lee, in view of Kim’s and Badjatiya’s teachings, and to provide the cancel button associated with the search results, as taught by Bridges. The motivation is to let users easily clear the search results, improving usability and control.
11. Claim 14 is are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Lee et al. (US 2018/0293220 A1) in view of Kim et al. (US 2019/0026074 A1) in view of Badjatiya et al. (US 20250335775 A1) and further in view of Gray et al. (US 11537671 B1).
As in Claim 14, Lee-Kim-Badjatiya teaches all the limitations of Claim 7. Lee-Kim-Badjatiya does not teach prioritizing the display of at least one entry in the output that is associated with the running application.
However, in the same filed of the invention, Gray teaches prioritizing the display of at least one entry in the output that is associated with the running application (at least col. 2, lines 12-29, col. 10, lines 16-33 and 44-60, col. 11, lines 14-30 and 39-52, the system ranks search results based on the current application focus, prioritizing results related to the application actively displayed on the user’s device. For example, if a map application is in focus, search results related to the map are shown first, followed by results from other applications such as email or music, which were previously in focus).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system and method for displaying the intelligent application including hints upon receiving the wake-up input, as taught by Lee, in view of Kim’s and Badjatiya’s teachings, and to rank the search results based on the current application focus, as taught by Gray. The motivation is to present the most relevant results associated with the currently focused applications, ensuring a seamless experience.
Response to Arguments
12. Applicant's arguments with respect to the claims 1-4, 6-7, 9-18, and 20 have been fully considered, but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
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 extension fee 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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Rinna Yi whose telephone number is (571) 270-7752 and fax number is (571) 270-8752. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30am-5:00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Fred Ehichioya can be reached on (571) 272-4034.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center and the Private Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center or Private PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center or Private PAIR to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center or the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/RINNA YI/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2179
Prosecution Insights