DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Office Action is in response to the preliminary amendment filed January 26, 2024. Claims 1-7 have been amended. Claims 1-7 remain pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on January 26, 2024 is being considered by the examiner.
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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claims 1, 6, and 7 are directed to a device, method, and computer readable medium for evaluating a dialog with a group of participants. The claims recite limitations to extract one or more features that are used to determine an activity score, from dialogue data, extract dialogue experience data from a previous dialogue log, determine a dialogue experience score that is obtained by quantifying, based on the dialogue experience data, a dialogue experience with given participants among the two or more participants, determine a weight of each of the features associated with the activity score, based on the dialogue experience score, and determine a dialogue evaluation score based on the activity score and the weight of each of the features associated with the activity. The limitation to “extract one or more features…” is a data gathering step that can be achieved by a person accessing the dialog data and selecting specific features related to dialog activity. The feature for “extracting dialog experience data….”can be achieved by the person reviewing conversation histories, and using pen and paper note how often speakers participate or contribute to the conversation. The feature to “determine a dialog experience score…” can be achieved by the person performing mathematical calculations to generate a score by assigning values to the dialog data features. The limitation to “determine a weight of each of the features associated with the activity score..”can be achieved by the person assigning a weight or value to the activity features. The step to “determine a dialogue evaluation score…” can be achieved by the person performing mathematical calculations generate a score using the activity score and the associated activity weights. The recited limitations are directed a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of the generic computer, device, circuitry, computer program, and generic computer components. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the recited generic computer, device, circuitry, computer program, and generic computer components amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, the elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea. The claims are not patent eligible.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as indicated with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of the generic computer, device, circuitry, computer program, and generic computer components to perform the various steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-5 do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The limitations of the dependent claims are directed to steps of organizing or manipulating the dialog data, performing mathematical calculations for determining weight values, organizing or manipulating dialog evaluation factors in a vector format using pen and paper, and repeating various steps or features for additional evaluation processing.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang (US Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0367325) in view of Koda (US Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0138068).
Jang teaches a system and method to sort chatrooms based on a user activeness in a corresponding chatroom and contextual information associated with an action of a user. Regarding claims 1, 6, and 7, Jang teaches a device, method and computer readable medium [Figs 1-3] to extract one or more features that are used to determine an activity score, from dialogue data [Figs 1-4; para 0071-0087 – user activeness], extract dialogue experience data from a previous dialogue log [Fig 4; para 0075 – conversation history], determine a dialogue experience score that is obtained by quantifying, based on the dialogue experience data [para 0071-0087 -- activeness relates to a number of conversations of the user or a number of visitations of the user in a chatroom, and may be calculated using, for example, a ratio of a number of conversations of the user to a total number of conversation in the chatroom and/or a ratio of the number of conversations of the user in the chatroom to a total number of conversations of the user in the entire chatrooms], determine a weight of each of the features associated with the activity score, based on the dialogue experience score [para 0079 – assigned weights], and determine a dialogue evaluation score based on the activity score and the weight of each of the features associated with the activity score [para 0089 – probability score]. Jang fails to teach a evaluating the dialogue experience with given participants among the two or more participants. In a similar field of endeavor, Koda teaches a voice evaluation system for a group of participants, that calculates values for feelings of the participants, detects silence, cheers or screams and determines a collective voice of the group using the various detected feelings, silence, cheers and screams [para 0046-0115] and teaches the system is advantageous in evaluating group conversations in addition to one-on-one conversations [para 0006]. One having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the advantages of implementing the group voice processing suggested by Koda, in the system of Jang, for the purpose of obtaining more accurate chatroom evaluations and thereby provide a more optimum sort list to the user, and thereby improve the user’s experience.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Jang and Koda teaches wherein the dialogue data includes personality data including personality traits of the two or more participants in the group, and the one or more features include a feature related to a speech and a feature related to a personality trait [Koda’s feeling detections/silence detections –para 0046-0115].
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Jang and Koda teaches determine the weight using a model that receives the dialogue experience score and that outputs the weight [Koda’s machine learning and Jang’s weight processing – where finding an optimum function for data and variables is an obvious step requiring only routine skill in the art].
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Jang and Koda teaches wherein the circuitry is configured to determine a vector having a plurality of factors that are associated with dialogue evaluation and are used as respective elements, as the dialogue evaluation score [Jang’s Table 1/Table 1].
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Jang and Koda teaches a second dialogue evaluation score for each of the two or more participants in the group, and determine a statistic of second dialogue evaluation scores for all participants of the group as the dialogue evaluation score for the entire group [Jang’s Fig 4 – conversation history in combination with Koda’s group collective voice evaluations –para 0046-0115].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANGELA A ARMSTRONG whose telephone number is (571)272-7598. The examiner can normally be reached M,T,TH,F 11:30-8:00.
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.
ANGELA A. ARMSTRONG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2659
/ANGELA A ARMSTRONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2659