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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/31/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
(I) Applicant argued:
This rejection is based on the same document (Pugliese et al.), which was cited in the Office Action dated April 29, 2024, except now the Examiner cites the granted patent instead of the published application. The Applicant's arguments filed June 28, 2024, were found persuasive and the rejections based on Pugliese et al. were withdrawn.
The Examiner submits that although the current rejection is based upon a similar reference, amendments have been made since which have changed the scope of the claims. Furthermore as shown below, Pugliese et al. clearly reads on the currently presented claims.
(II) Applicant also remarked:
Pugliese et al. does not disclose that the processing device is able to render data to be vocalized or displayed and that a determined first datum and second datum are rendered by the processing device. Indeed, Pugliese et al. describe a central service, in other words a speech Gateway ([0013]), which acts as a proxy between chatbot and user devices (see fig 3).
Pugliese also does not disclose a method that adapts in real time the rendering (vocalized or displayed) of a message data according to their type.
Thus, Pugliese modifies the chatbot message to retain only data that can be vocalized. At best, Pugliese sends 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 (see end of para. [0073]). So, Pugliese does not process a chatbot message and in particular the data contained in the message, in order to adapt in real time the rendering of message data (vocalized or displayed).
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. In col. 8, ll. 29-col. 9, ll. 8, Pugliese et al. states:
As the message comes into the CHATBOT ADAPTOR, it is parsed to determine its type. Several types of chatbot messages are appropriate for a text or web interface, and the system needs to cope with these various types of messages. A non-exhaustive list includes [102]:
Plain text: in this message, the full text to convey to a user is in a single sentence that can also be spoken to the user. No special additional processing is required to convert this message to a format suitable for conversion into voice.
Options list: the user is asked to choose one of several options. For example, what color do you want? red, blue, yellow, or green? The chatbot designer may have originally intended these options as web page buttons that the user may select, but this needs to be adapted for audio sessions. The CHATBOT ADAPTOR may use the initial question coming from the chatbot to start the sentence to be spoken to the user and then add the options by inserting the necessary lexical elements to present them as a list, as directed by the application configuration [103], in order to derive a plain text sentence suitable for conversion into voice.
Binary: a particular case of an option list is the “yes or no” options list that only has two choices. A binary choice is easy for a human to formulate, but very short utterances are problematic for speech recognition software to interpret. The CHATBOT ADAPTOR may substitute longer alternatives for a “yes or no” question to prompt the user to say a phrase with higher recognition percentage, as directed by the application configuration [103]. The output, in this case, is a plain text sentence suitable for conversion into voice, mentioning the alternatives to “yes” and “no” and asking the user to select between the two.
Web content: a text-based chatbot may send an HTTP link to the client application to let users click on it and access additional content. Unfortunately, this is not appropriate for a spoken conversation, and so the CHATBOT ADAPTOR may substitute the link with a plain text sentence coming from the application configuration [103]. 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).
As shown herein, Pugliese et al. discloses different types of messages i.e., Plain text, Options list, Binary and Web content that is both displayed and/or spoken/vocalized. For example, Pugliese et al. states, “Plain text: in this message, the full text to convey to a user is in a single sentence that can also be spoken to the user…. Options list:… The CHATBOT ADAPTOR may use the initial question coming from the chatbot to start the sentence to be spoken to the user and then add the options by inserting the necessary lexical elements to present them as a list, as directed by the application configuration [103], in order to derive a plain text sentence suitable for conversion into voice.” Thus Pugliese et al. clearly teaches that the processing device is able to render data to be vocalized or displayed and that a determined first datum and second datum are rendered by the processing device.
Furthermore, as shown above Pugliese et al. states, “As the message comes into the CHATBOT ADAPTOR, it is parsed to determine its type.” Thus contrary to Applicant’s assertion, Pugliese et al. discloses a method that adapts in real time the rendering (vocalized or displayed) of a message data according to their type.
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., real time) 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). However, Pugliese et al. teaches this feature, “As the message comes into the CHATBOT ADAPTOR, it is parsed to determine its type.” (Id). This is clearly real time rendering of a message.
Thus, since the system of Pugliese et al. parses incoming messages of different types i.e., Plain text, Options list, Binary and Web content in order to determine whether they should be displayed or spoken, Pugliese et al. clearly discloses a method that adapts in real time the rendering (vocalized or displayed) of a message data according to their type. Therefore Pugliese et al. teaches the claimed limitations.
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 § 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; and
rendering said at least one first datum and said at least one second datum [Pugliese et al., 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 rendering 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 rendering 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 rendering further comprises rendering at least one fourth datum capable of being vocalized, with 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 rendering comprises rendering 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
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.
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