DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined.
This application is a CON of 18/385,692, now US 12,323,373.
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 .
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 and 4 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1 and 2, respectively, of U.S. Patent No. 12,323,373. Claims 2, 3 and 5-11 are also rejected based on their dependence on rejected Claim 1. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patent anticipates the instant application’s claims according to the table below:
Instant Patent
1. A method implemented by one or more processors, the method comprising: receiving user input from a user of a client device; determining, based on processing the user input, that the user input includes: a request to cause an automated assistant to initiate an automated telephone call with an entity; and a task to be performed during the automated telephone call with the entity; prior to causing the automated assistant to initiate the telephone call with the entity: determining, based on the entity and/or the task, whether to cause a simulation of the automated telephone call with the entity to be performed to simulate the task; and in response to determining to cause the simulation of the automated telephone call with the entity to be performed: causing a simulation of the automated telephone call with the entity to be performed to simulate the task; determining, based on a result of the simulation, a next action to be implemented, wherein the next action is whether to initiate the automated telephone call with the entity or refrain from initiating the automated telephone call with the entity; and causing the next action to be implemented.
1. A method implemented by one or more processors, the method comprising: receiving user input from a user of a client device; determining, based on processing the user input, that the user input includes: a request to cause an automated assistant to initiate an automated telephone call with an entity; and a task to be performed during the automated telephone call with the entity; prior to causing the automated assistant to initiate the telephone call with the entity: causing a simulation of the automated telephone call with the entity to be performed to simulate the task; determining, based on a result of the simulation, whether to initiate the automated telephone call with the entity or refrain from initiating the automated telephone call with the entity; and in response to determining to initiate the automated telephone call with the entity: causing the automated assistant to initiate the automated telephone call with the entity; and causing the automated assistant to perform the task during the automated telephone call with the entity.
4. The method of claim 1, wherein the next action to be implemented is to refrain from initiating the automated telephone call with the entity, and wherein causing the next action to be implemented comprises: determining, based on the result of the simulation, whether to recommend modifying the task; and in response to determining to recommend modifying the task: determining one or more modified tasks to be performed and in lieu of the task initially determined based on processing the user input, wherein each of the one or more modified tasks modify the entity or one or more corresponding parameters of the task; and causing an indication of one or more of the modified tasks to be provided for presentation to the user via the client device.
2. The method of claim 1, further comprising: in response to determining to refrain from initiating the automated telephone call with the entity: determining, based on the result of the simulation, whether to recommend modifying the task to be performed; and in response to determining to recommend modifying the task: determining one or more modified tasks to be performed and in lieu of the task initially determined based on processing the user input, wherein each of the one or more modified tasks modify the entity or one or more corresponding parameters of the task; and causing an indication of one or more of the modified tasks to be provided for presentation to the user via the client device.
.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12-20 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: It must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). Here, the limitations presented in the independent claims, taken together as a whole and as presented, cannot be rejected by the prior art of record without using a level of hindsight reasoning that is impermissible. Specifically, the closest prior-art references: US 12,080,285 B2; US 2022/0109753 A1; US 2022/0335940 A1 and US 2020/0150839 A1, along with those listed in Form PTO-892, either alone or in combination, fail to disclose all of the limitations as presented and required by the independent claims.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Interview Practice
USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR)
The USPTO AIR is a new optional online interview scheduling tool that allows Applicants to request an interview with an Examiner for their pending patent application.
The USPTO AIR form is available on our website at: http://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/interview-practice.
By submitting this type of interview request, the pending patent application will be in compliance with the written authorization requirement for Internet communication in accordance with MPEP §502.03. This authorization will be in effect until the Applicant provides a written withdrawal of authorization to the Examiner of record.
If you have questions or need assistance with the USPTO AIR form or with interview practice at the USPTO, please contact an Interview Specialist at http://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/interview-practice/interview-specialist or send an email to ExaminerInterviewPractice@USPTO.GOV.
Examiner Notes:
A) Prior to conducting any interview (whether using AIR or not), Applicant(s) must submit an agenda including the proposed date and time, all arguments in writing, and proposed claim amendments (if applicable). Any proposed amendments or arguments not presented in the agenda will only be heard by the Examiner, but because the Examiner will not have heard them in advance and been given an equitable opportunity to consider them, no decision will be rendered, nor agreement made. ALL AGENDAS MUST BE RECEIVED BY THE EXAMINER AT LEAST 24 HOURS PRIOR TO THE START OF THE INTERVIEW, OR THE PREVIOUS BUSINESS DAY, WHICHEVER IS LONGER, or the interview may have to be rescheduled.
B) After-final interviews may be granted, but the agenda must be in compliance with MPEP 713.09 which limits the interview only to discussions of proposed amendments, or clarification for appeal. After-final interviews are not to be conducted for the purpose of rehashing previously made arguments. After seeing the agenda, Examiner will decide whether to grant or deny the interview.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See Form PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD G KEEHN whose telephone number is (571)270-5007. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00am - 5:00pm Eastern.
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, John A Follansbee can be reached at 571-272-3964. 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.
/RICHARD G KEEHN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2444
Prosecution Insights