Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 3 and 8 are pending and are independent. Claims 1-10 had been pending but subject to a preliminary amendment Claims 1-2, 4-7 and 9-10 were canceled.
This Application was published as U.S. 20240386211.
Apparent priority: 29 March 2021 (JP).
This Application has 198 pages of Specification and 74 pages of Drawings.
Claim Objections
Claims 3 and 8 are objected to because of informalities that may be addressed with the following suggested amendments:
3. An information processing system that produces a virtual human resource to be dispatched from a dispatcher to a client, the system comprising:
an acquisition unit configured to acquire, as dispatcher information, data represented in a semantically normalized format or a format convertible thereto, the data including at least a personalization summarization logic from among information to be provided from the dispatcher; and
a virtual human resource production unit configured to produce a virtual human resource using the dispatcher information.
8. A virtual human resource to be dispatched from a dispatcher to a client that is produced using, as dispatcher information, data represented in a semantically normalized format or a format convertible thereto, the data including at least a personalization summarization logic among information to be provided from the dispatcher,
the virtual human resource comprising:
a task execution unit configured to use the plurality of internal models to enable a task instruction to be issued in a form of a message readable by a human, thereby executing a predetermined task while interacting with the human.
Avoid using quotation marks, capitalizations, and abbreviations in the Claim. If a special meaning is intended for a Claim term, it must be defined with sufficient particularity inside the Claim. In other words, add a wherein clause: “wherein the semantically normalized format is ….”
Appropriate correction is required.
[0238] Here, as described above, the “semantically normalized format” refers to a semantic expression form with high machine readability so that the same sense is expressed by the same form, including natural language and programming language. Specific examples include AMR and N4. The N4 will be described later in detail with reference to FIG. 53.
35 U.S.C. 112(f) Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are: the various “units” highlighted below:
3. An information processing system that produces a virtual human resource to be dispatched from a dispatcher to a client, the system comprising:
an acquisition unit configured to acquire, as dispatcher information, data represented in a “semantically normalized format” or a format convertible thereto,
the data including at least a personalization summarization logic from among information to be provided from the dispatcher; and
a virtual human resource production unit configured to produce a virtual human resource using the dispatcher information.
8. A virtual human resource to be dispatched from a dispatcher to a client that is produced using, as dispatcher information, data represented in a “semantically normalized format” or a format convertible thereto,
the data including at least a personalization summarization logic among information to be provided from the dispatcher,
the virtual human resource comprising:
a task execution unit configured to use the plurality of internal models to enable a task instruction to be issued in a form of a message readable by a human, thereby executing a predetermined task while interacting with the human.
(This Claim is not interpreted as a single means claims which would be invalid under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).)
These limitations are generic in the context of the art and don’t refer to any specific structure and only serve as placeholders for the structure that performs the associated function(s) without providing any information about what that structure is. MPEP 2181 I A says:
For a term to be considered a substitute for "means," and lack sufficient structure for performing the function, it must serve as a generic placeholder and thus not limit the scope of the claim to any specific manner or structure for performing the claimed function. It is important to remember that there are no absolutes in the determination of terms used as a substitute for "means" that serve as generic placeholders. The examiner must carefully consider the term in light of the specification and the commonly accepted meaning in the technological art. Every application will turn on its own facts.
Based on the ordinary skill in the art and description of functions of these components in the Specification, they refer to processors or a combination of processor and memory or to a combination of software and hardware.
PNG
media_image1.png
338
522
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
692
852
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
712
1010
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
574
970
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PLEASE NOTE: This is NOT a rejection. Please don’t address it as a rejection. If the Applicant does not agree with the INTERPRETATION, he may argue or amend to replace the terms interpreted under 112(f) with structural terms such as “microphone” or “processor” as appropriately supported by the Specification. In the alternative, he may let the interpretation stand if the intent was to include a means plus function limitation in the Claim.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 3 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 1: The independent Claims are directed to statutory categories:
Claim 3 is a system claim and directed to the machine or manufacture category of patentable subject matter.
Claim 8 is a system claim and directed to the machine or manufacture category of patentable subject matter.
Step 2A, Prong One: Does the Claim recite a Judicially Recognized Exception? Abstract Idea? Are these Claims nevertheless considered Abstract as a Mathematical Concept (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations), Mental Process (concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion), or Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity (1-fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk), 2-commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations), 3- managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) and fall under the judicial exception to patentable subject matter?)
The rejected Claims recite Mental Processes or Methods of Organizing Human Activity.
Step 2A, Prong Two: Additional Elements that Integrate the Judicial Exception into a Practical Application? Identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s), and evaluating those additional elements to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. “Integration into a practical application” requires an additional element(s) or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Uses the considerations laid out by the Supreme Court and the Federal Circuit to evaluate whether the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application.
The rejected Claims do not include additional limitations that point to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application and are therefore directed to the abstract idea.
Claims 3 and 8 refer to a generic automation of a mental process of receiving instructions for generating an avatar and generating an avatar for a person that can interact with avatars of other people in a computer game, for example.
3. An information processing system that produces a virtual human resource to be dispatched from a dispatcher to a client,
the system comprising:
an acquisition unit configured to acquire, as dispatcher information, data represented in a “semantically normalized format” or a format convertible thereto, [Max obtains data provided by John written on a piece of paper.]
the data including at least a personalization summarization logic from among information to be provided from the dispatcher; and [The data and description that Max obtains from John includes personalization information for creating an avatar.]
a virtual human resource production unit configured to produce a virtual human resource using the dispatcher information. [Max programs an avatar for John based on the provided information.]
8. A virtual human resource to be dispatched from a dispatcher to a client that is produced using, as dispatcher information, data represented in a “semantically normalized format” or a format convertible thereto, [Max programs an avatar for John based on the provided information.]
the data including at least a personalization summarization logic among information to be provided from the dispatcher, [The data and description that Max obtains from John includes personalization information for creating an avatar.]
the virtual human resource comprising:
a task execution unit configured to use the plurality of internal models to enable a task instruction to be issued in a form of a message readable by a human, [The avatar program permits John to control his avatar to yield a sword.]
thereby executing a predetermined task while interacting with the human. [Different avatars can interact as being directed by their respective humans.]
Step 2B: Search for Inventive Concept: Additional Elements Do not amount to Significantly More: The limitations are interpreted under 112(f) and pertain to generic structural components for performing generic computer functions and are well-understood, routine, and conventional machine components that are being used for their well-understood, routine, conventional and rather generic functions. Additionally, these limitations are expressed parenthetically and lack nexus to the Claim language and as such are a separable and divisible mention to a machine. Accordingly, they are not sufficient to cause the Claim as a whole to amount to significantly more than the underlying abstract idea.
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Piernot (U.S. 20150348548) in view of Zhang (U.S. 20210049085).
Regarding Claim 3, Piernot teaches:
3. An information processing system that produces a virtual human resource to be dispatched from a dispatcher to a client, [Piernot, Figure 1, the “Server System 110” teaches the “information processing system” of the Claim that provides/produces a “Virtual Assistant” / “Virtual Human Resource” to the “User Device 102” / “Client.” “[0016] … Server system 110 can provide server-side functionalities for any number of clients residing on a respective user device 102.” “[0017] Server system 110 can include one or more virtual assistant servers 114 that can include a client-facing I/O interface 122, one or more processing modules 118, data and model storage 120, and an I/O interface to external services 116. The client-facing I/O interface 122 can facilitate the client-facing input and output processing for virtual assistant server 114….”]
the system comprising:
an acquisition unit configured to acquire, as dispatcher information, data represented in a “semantically normalized format” or a format convertible thereto, [Piernot, Figure 1, “I/O interface to Client 122” and “I/O interface to external services 116.” The Virtual Assistant of Piernot can be rule based and the rules teach the “dispatcher information” of the Claim. Additionally, the contextual data that are used by the rules need to be in a same format and suggest the “data represented in a semantically normalized format” or a format convertible thereto” of the Claim. “[0041] In other examples, a rule-based system can be used to determine whether or not the virtual assistant should respond to the spoken user input by evaluating any number of conditional rules that are based on the contextual information to determine whether or not the spoken user input was intended for the virtual assistant. ….” Figure 3, 308, the Virtual Assistant is provided with rules that help it determine whether the user is talking to the Virtual Assistant. “[0045] … At block 308, it can be determined, based on contextual information associated with the identified spoken user input, whether the virtual assistant should respond to the user's question. In this example, it can be determined (using either the rule-based or probabilistic system) that the virtual assistant should respond to the user's question because the contextual information indicates that the user was looking at the user device while speaking the question and that the volume of the user's voice was above a threshold volume….”]
the data including at least a personalization summarization logic from among information to be provided from the dispatcher; and [Piernot, the rules are developed based on contextual information which include the user’s personal information: “[0112] In some examples, the contextual information can include user data from memory 250 or another storage device located within or remote from user device 102. The user data can include any type of information associated with the user, such as a contact list, calendar, preferences, personal information, financial information, family information, or the like….” See also [0160]-[0163].]
a virtual human resource production unit configured to produce a virtual human resource using the dispatcher information. [Piernot, Figure 1, the “Processing Modules 118” of the Server System 110 which generates the “Virtual Assistant.” “[0014] A virtual assistant can be capable of accepting a user request at least partially in the form of a natural language command, request, statement, narrative, and/or inquiry. Typically, the user request seeks either an informational answer or performance of a task by the virtual assistant. A satisfactory response to the user request can include either provision of the requested informational answer, performance of the requested task, or a combination of the two….”]
Depending on the interpretation of “produce” as provide or generate, Piernot can be a 102 reference.
To cover the interpretation of “produce” as “generating” a PA, a second reference is added.
Regarding Claim 3, Zhang teaches:
3. An information processing system that produces a virtual human resource to be dispatched from a dispatcher to a client, [Zhang, Figure 1, teaches a “simulator component 146” of “Data processing system 102,” which can be used to develop an application for a digital assistant. “[0024] A developer of an application can develop the application using an application development engine, and then provide a transcript file (e.g., an HTML file with the developer's content). The simulation tool can simulate features of the application and provide a dynamic real-time interface via an inner iframe of the webpage layout….” “[0025] For example, a developer can create an application for building to-do lists. The developer can provide the digital assistant server (e.g., data processing system) with an HTML file with content. The digital assistant can present an iframe with a hook to the simulation tool. The simulation tool can use a 2-way communication protocol, a state machine to synchronize aspects of the conversational or operational flow, and the state machine to generate queries or responses. Thus, the developer can validate or verify that their application is functioning as expected on one or more different types of devices or digital assistant surfaces.” “[0089] The simulator component 146 can establish one or more iframes. The simulator component 146 can establish the iframes by providing the iframes for display in a web browser that is executed by a computing device 104, service provider device 108, or content provider device 106. Any one of the computing device 104, content provider device 106 or service provider device 108 can be referred to as an application developer device or a device of the application developer….”]
the system comprising:
an acquisition unit configured to acquire, as dispatcher information, data represented in a “semantically normalized format” or a format convertible thereto, [Zhang, Figure 1, “interface 110” and “[0048] The data processing system 102 can include an interface component 110 designed, configured, constructed, or operational to receive and transmit information using, for example, data packets. The interface 110 can receive and transmit information using one or more protocols, such as a network protocol. The interface 110 can include a hardware interface, software interface, wired interface, or wireless interface. The interface 110 can facilitate translating or formatting data from one format to another format. For example, the interface 110 can include an application programming interface that includes definitions for communicating between various components, such as software components.” ]
the data including at least a personalization summarization logic from among information to be provided from the dispatcher; and [Zhang indirectly to the use of personal information: “[0150] For situations in which the systems discussed herein collect personal information about users, or may make use of personal information, the users may be provided with an opportunity to control whether programs or features that may collect personal information (e.g., information about a user's social network, social actions or activities, a user's preferences, or a user's location), or to control whether or how to receive content from a content server or other data processing system that may be more relevant to the user….”]
a virtual human resource production unit configured to produce a virtual human resource using the dispatcher information. [Zhang, [0087] … The digital assistant application engine can refer to a console, software development kit, or application programming interface that is configured to allow a developer to build an application with one or more of hotword or trigger word detection, voice control, or natural language understanding. For example, the digital assistant application engine can refer to a console, software development kit, or application programming interface that is configured to allow a developer to define actions. An action can be built using the engine by mapping an intent to fulfillment. An action can define an entry point to start conversations, along with a unique identifier (which can be referred to as the intent) that maps to a fulfillment that processes the intent. For example, an action can be to purchase goods, check the status of an order, or show a daily deal. An intent can be defined that can be triggered by saying “OK, talk to My Favorite Shoe Store to buy some shoes.””]
Piernot and Zhang pertain to the generation and use of virtual digital assistants and it would have been obvious to modify Piernot to include the generation interface of Zhang which provides flexibility in the design of the VPA. This combination falls under combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results or use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way. See MPEP 2141, KSR, 550 U.S. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wellman (U.S. 10715329) in view of Anand (U.S. 20150019248).
Regarding Claim 8, Wellman teaches:
8. A virtual human resource to be dispatched from a dispatcher to a client that is produced using, as dispatcher information, [Wellman is directed to “Personated Virtual Assistantss” (PVAs). Figures 5 and 6 show examples. “A Personated Reality Ecosystem System enables real-time interactions between Users and Personated Virtual Assistants (PVA) acting on behalf of the User. The PVA is a computer-generated character, an animated virtual human, combined with artificial intelligence and a unique digital identity that is authenticated and authorized using blockchain technologies. ...”]
data represented in a “semantically normalized format” or a format convertible thereto,
the data including at least a personalization summarization logic among information to be provided from the dispatcher, [Wellman the Virtual Assistants of Wellman are personalized and the emphasis is on the personalization: “The present invention provides a system (referred to herein as a “Personated Reality Ecosystem”) and method for real-time interactions between a user and a personated virtual assistant (PVA). The term “personated virtual assistant” (PVA) refers to a 2-dimensional or 3-dimensional graphical representation of a human being capable of performing in a variety of roles which may include (but are not limited to) a physician assistant, a retail clerk, a stock broker, a customer service agent, a shipping clerk, a bank teller, a sales agent, a health coach and a real estate agent. The PVA may be embodied as a collection of instructions stored in a computer-readable storage medium….” 2:1-20. “… A PVA when initially created is not unique hence is referred to as a GenericPVA. A GenericPVA can undergo a process that makes it unique transforming it into a UniquePVA. The PVA looks, behaves, communicates, thinks, reasons and learns, like a human being displayed on a computer screen or other visual representation….” Abstract.]
the virtual human resource comprising:
a task execution unit configured to use the plurality of internal models to enable a task instruction to be issued in a form of a message readable by a human, [Wellman, “… The UniquePVA will only accept commands from the unique User with whom they are paired. This allows a unique trusted relationship to be established between the UniquePVA and the User. . …” 3:40-59. “Instructions for diagnosis may include instructions for synchronous/real-time interaction and asynchronous/offline user interaction. The concept of synchrony, as used herein, refers generally to a session of user input. Thus, instructions for “synchronous” or “real-time” user interaction may include instructions for user interface, including (without limitation) conversation (i.e., natural language interface methods known in the art) and other I/O methods known in the art (including such non-limiting examples as typing, gesturing, prosthetic interface, etc.). ….” 2:38-48.]
thereby executing a predetermined task while interacting with the human. [Wellman, “… The instructions may include (but are not limited to) instructions for rendering the PVA, registering the UniquePVA, authenticating the UniquePVA, executing user instructions, providing services to a user and diagnosis of a user. …” 2:25-35. “… As part of this trusted relationship, the UniquePVA will only execute commands from the User and will maintain the privacy and confidentiality of the information obtained from the User and their interactions. ….” 3:45-59.]
Wellman does not teach that the data used to develop the PVA is presented in the semantically normalized format.
Anand teaches:
data represented in a “semantically normalized format” or a format convertible thereto, [Anand: Figure 1, 104: Store as Semantically Normalized data Representation language. “[0109] The processor 102 is configured to mine data sources for data. The mining extracts data from different formats. Using mapping, inference, searching, natural language processing, and/or other extraction, data about one or more patients is mined from the different data sources. …” “[0110] The mined information is formatted in a semantically normalized format. The data from different sources and different formats is altered to a given format, such as a unified coding. This generic format allows the data from different data sources to be evaluated together. Alternatively, the processor 102 is configured to use mined information, but another processor or processors perform the mining.”]
Wellman and Anand pertain to the use of data for further processing and it would have been obvious to use the semantically normalized format of Anand for the system of Wellman for the reasons provide by Anand itself. Data from disparate sources and in different formats should be converted to one format if one processor is to be used. This combination falls under combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results or use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way. See MPEP 2141, KSR, 550 U.S. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Regarding Claim 8, Piernot teaches:
8. A virtual human resource to be dispatched from a dispatcher to a client that is produced using, as dispatcher information, data represented in a “semantically normalized format” or a format convertible thereto, [Piernot, Figure 1, the “Processing Modules 118” of the Server System 110 generates the “Virtual Assistant” and sends it to the “User Device 102.”
the data including at least a personalization summarization logic among information to be provided from the dispatcher, [Piernot, the rules are developed based on contextual information which include the user’s personal information: “[0112] In some examples, the contextual information can include user data from memory 250 or another storage device located within or remote from user device 102. The user data can include any type of information associated with the user, such as a contact list, calendar, preferences, personal information, financial information, family information, or the like….” See also [0160]-[0163].]
the virtual human resource comprising:
a task execution unit configured to use the plurality of internal models to enable a task instruction to be issued in a form of a message readable by a human, [Piernot’s Virtual Assistant can execute tasks or respond to queries both received as instructions in natural language / “message readable by a human.” Figure 2, “processors 204” and “memory 250” form the “task execution unit” of the Claim. “[0013] FIG. 1 illustrates exemplary system 100 for implementing a virtual assistant according to various examples. The terms “virtual assistant,” “digital assistant,” “intelligent automated assistant,” or “automatic digital assistant,” can refer to any information processing system that interprets natural language input in spoken and/or textual form to infer user intent, and performs actions based on the inferred user intent. For example, to act on an inferred user intent, the system can perform one or more of the following: identifying a task flow with steps and parameters designed to accomplish the inferred user intent; inputting specific requirements from the inferred user intent into the task flow; executing the task flow by invoking programs, methods, services, APIs, or the like; and generating output responses to the user in an audible (e.g., speech) and/or visual form.”] thereby executing a predetermined task while interacting with the human. [Piernot: ‘”0014] A virtual assistant can be capable of accepting a user request at least partially in the form of a natural language command, request, statement, narrative, and/or inquiry. Typically, the user request seeks either an informational answer or performance of a task by the virtual assistant. A satisfactory response to the user request can include either provision of the requested informational answer, performance of the requested task, or a combination of the two….”]
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FARIBA SIRJANI whose telephone number is (571)270-1499. The examiner can normally be reached 9 to 5, M-F.
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 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.
/Fariba Sirjani/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2659