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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 4/16/26 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/16/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
(I) Applicant argued:
In contrast, the method of claim 1 proactively determines and generates contextual voice commands that are not direct answers to a question (i.e. not included in said plurality of data), but rather meta-commands related to the interaction itself. As supported by the application (e.g., page 13, lines 11-15), examples of such commands include "repeat" (to re-vocalize the last utterance) or "what are the choices?" (to vocalize a list of options).
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Initially, the Examiner notes that page 13, lines 11-15 of the Instant Specification states, “For example, the text "please choose" is added just before the list of choices. According to a particular embodiment, a datum relating to a running order for the vocalization is associated with each datum and/or element to be vocalized.” It is unclear how this section of the Specification relates to Applicant’s argument.
In any event, Pugliese does indeed teach the limitation, “said at least one voice command not being included in said plurality of data” in col. 10, ll. 15-18 which states, “In FIG. 6, the user responds to the sentence sent previously [210]. Depending on the message type, the user may either pick one of the options (if the message is of a type that includes options), or the user may say (utter) something else.” (Emphasis added).
(II) Applicant also remarked:
Pugliese is entirely silent on this concept. Its system is designed to translate a text-based interaction into a voice-based one, but it does not teach how to enhance this voice interaction with a layer of dynamically generated, contextual meta-commands that anticipate the user's needs for controlling the dialogue flow. Pugliese's system does not determine that, after vocalizing a message, the user is likely to say "repeat" and therefore does not make this specific command interpretable by the device.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., determine that, after vocalizing a message, the user is likely to say "repeat") are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
(III) Applicant further argued:
In summary, Pugliese teaches using a grammar for recognizing expected answers, whereas the method of claim 1 covers generating contextual meta-commands to manage the dialogue. This constitutes a clear distinguishing feature with a significant technical effect.
The Examiner asserts that Pugliese teaches the newly added limitations, “determining, as a function of said plurality of data, at least one voice command that the user is likely to enunciate” in col. 9, ll. 42-59 and in col. 14, ll. 32-55 which state in part, “In some embodiments, the type of the intended next communication from the telephone channel can be used to select among various possible speech-to-text services. In this case, the system may consider the performance of the different speech-to-text services to interpret the expected next utterance from the user and pick the most suitable speech-to-text engine for the next communication… In situations where the latest chatbot message consists of a set of options, the Invention can operate by automatically generating a set of instructions for the speech-to-text service to determine (with higher certainty) the meaning of the user's utterance among a set of expected user utterances. By knowing the latest set of options, the system can anticipate that the user is likely to respond according to these expected user utterances. The system can then use the previously selected preferred speech-to-text service and this set of likely user utterances to interpret the actual user utterance and produce raw chatbot input text.” (Emphasis added). Thus, the newly added claim features are clearly taught by Pugliese.
(IV) Applicant also argued:
Moreover, Pugliese fails to disclose a processing device that performs the actions of "vocalizing said at least one first datum and displaying said at least one second datum," as required in claim 1. Rather, Pugliese discloses a system (proxy) that only transmits data for rendering elsewhere. Accordingly, Pugliese does not directly and unambiguously disclose the claimed steps of vocalizing" and "displaying" as active steps that are performed by the processing device implementing the method.
The Examiner notes that in col. 9, ll. 2-8, Pugliese states, “The CHATBOT ADAPTOR may also direct the DIALOG MANAGER to use alternative methods, such as a text message, to send the HTTP link to the user's device in parallel with the voice conversation if the user's device is capable of receiving text messages. In this case, the plain text sentence may warn the user to expect a text message with a link.” (Emphasis added). Therefore, Pugliese does indeed directly and unambiguously disclose the claimed steps of “vocalizing" and "displaying" as active steps that are performed by the processing device implementing the method.
The Examiner points out that the pending claims must be "given the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification" [In re Prater, 162 USPQ 541 (CCPA 1969)] and "consistent with the interpretation that those skilled in the art would reach" [In re Cortright, 49 USPQ2d 1464 (Fed. Cir. 1999)]. In conclusion, upon taking the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims, the cited reference teaches all of the claimed limitations and the rejections are maintained as below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The claims recite the limitation, “said at least one voice command not being included in said plurality of data” however the Instant Specification does not provide any support for this limitation. Paragraph [0092] of the Instant Specification US PGPUB states, “The method can also determine and/or generate “intentions” as a function of the content of the message. An “intention” is a voice command that the user is likely to enunciate and that the processing method must be able to interpret. For example, when a text is vocalized, an intention is generated allowing the vocalization of the text to be repeated when requested by the user. Specifically, when the user says the “repeat” voice command (generated intention) the text is re-vocalized. In the same way, a “what are the choices?” intention can be generated by the method in order to allow vocalization of the list of choices.” And paragraphs [0101] and [0106] describe associating tags with intentions.
However, there is no mention of any “intention” or voice command not being included in a plurality of data in the Instant Specification. Thus, the claimed limitation, “said at least one voice command not being included in said plurality of data,” was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 5-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Pugliese et al. (11,900,942).
As per claim 1, Pugliese et al. teaches a method for processing a message sent by a conversational agent, said message comprising a plurality of data, said method being implemented by a processing device and comprising:
receiving said message, wherein the message is a textual message;
determining, according to a type of said plurality of data detected via analysis of the plurality of data, at least one first datum to be vocalized and at least one second datum to be displayed, said first and second datums being included in said plurality of data;
determining, as a function of said plurality of data, at least one voice command that the user is likely to enunciate [col. 9, ll. 42-59 and col. 14, ll. 32-55], said at least one voice command not being included in said plurality of data [col. 10, ll. 15-18];
making said at least one voice command interpretable by the processing device [col. 10, ll. 19-27];
vocalizing said at least one first datum; and
displaying said at least one second datum [col. 8, ll. 14-col. 9, ll. 8].
As per claim 2, Pugliese et al. teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the determining and vocalizing are conditional upon a result of detecting a type of said received message [col. 9, ll. 22-38].
As per claim 5, Pugliese et al. teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the vocalizing is followed by acquiring at least one third datum, called response datum, from a user [col. 9, ll. 51-64].
As per claim 6, Pugliese et al. teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the vocalizing further comprises vocalizing at least one fourth, wherein said fourth datum being determined as a function of said plurality of data [col. 10, ll. 40-64].
As per claim 7, Pugliese et al. teaches the method according to claim 6, wherein said fourth datum is determined as a function of said at least one first datum and/or of said at least one second datum [col. 13, ll. 23-39].
As per claim 10, Pugliese et al. the method according to Claim 1, wherein the method further comprises: determining at least one user intention according to a content of said message, and wherein the vocalizing comprises vocalizing said at least one first datum, said at least one second datum and said at least one user intention [col. 1, ll. 43-59].
Claims 8-9 have similar limitations as to the rejected claims above therefore they are being rejected under the same rationale.
There are prior art made of record not relied upon but is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RANODHI N SERRAO whose telephone number is (571)272-7967. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 8:00 am to 4:00 pm.
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 Follansbee can be reached on (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.
Ranodhi N. Serrao
/RANODHI SERRAO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2444
Prosecution Insights