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 November 6, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1 and 11, Applicant argues:
“Therefore, independent claim 1 patentably improves on Kelly in that it recites ‘performing processing with regard to the first language processing data to determine first output data, wherein the first output data corresponds to information required to perform a first action,’ ‘after storing the first output data, receiving, from a second device, second input data corresponding to a second natural language input,’ ‘performing processing using the second input data and the first output data to determine second language processing data corresponding to the information required to perform the first action,’ ‘performing processing with regard to the second language processing data to determine second output data associated with the first action,’ and ‘determining, using the second output data, output audio data responsive to the second natural language input.’” (Remarks, pages 9-10)
In response, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Kelly discloses “performing processing with regard to the first language processing data to determine first output data, wherein the first output data corresponds to information required to perform a first action” through its multi-step pizza ordering scenario as disclosed in fig. 8 and col. 25, lines 7-36. Furthermore, Kelly discloses “after storing the first output data, receiving, from a second device, second input data corresponding to a second natural language input” as Kelly states in “a first process may be started using a first device 110 a and may be resumed on a second device 110 b using the progress data stored on the server(s) 120 without departing from the disclosure” (col. 21, lines 23-26 and see fig. 4). And Kelly discloses in fig. 9A-9D storing progress data through the process.
Furthermore, Kelly discloses “performing processing using the second input data and the first output data to determine second language processing data corresponding to the information required to perform the first action” as Kelly discloses adding in time of delivery or billing details for the pizza order (col. 25, lines 7-36). Additionally, Fig. 11 of Kelly discloses using voice command to resume a process (see col. 29, lines 56 - col. 20, line 13). Kelly also discloses “performing processing with regard to the second language processing data to determine second output data associated with the first action” because Kelly resumes the from the progress data and requests remaining information (col. 25, lines 7-36, col. 29, lines 56 - col. 20, line 13). And lastly, Kelly discloses “determining, using the second output data, output audio data responsive to the second natural language input” as Kelly discloses if every subtask is complete for pizza ordering, then generate synthesized output of confirmation of order as shown in fig 8, element 826 and col. 24, lines 61-67. In conclusion, the rejection is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-7, 9-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kelly et al. (US Patent 9,972,318).
Regarding claim 1, Kelly discloses a computer-implemented method comprising:
receiving, from a first device, first input data corresponding to a first natural language input (col. 25, lines 7-36 – as an example, voice command to order pizza);
performing processing using the first input data to determine first language processing data (col. 25, lines 7-36 – pizza order requires many sub-tasks such as size, toppings etc; col. 29, lines 4-42);
determining first data is needed to perform further processing corresponding to the first language processing data (col. 25, lines 7-36 – “may request information about what type of pizza (e.g., size, toppings, crust, etc.)”);
determining second data corresponding to a request for the first data (col. 25, lines 7-36 – “generate synthesized speech (e.g., ‘What toppings would you like on your pizza?’)”);
sending the second data to the first device (col. 25, lines 7-36 – “generate synthesized speech (e.g., ‘What toppings would you like on your pizza?’)”);
performing processing with regard to the first language processing data to determine first output data, wherein the first output data corresponds to information required to perform a first action (col. 25, lines 7-36 – for example, the pizza order of large pizza with mushrooms; the first action being placing the pizza order);
storing the first output data (col. 25, lines 7-36 – “the server(s) 120 may store progress data so that the user 10 may resume the process from the previous session”);
after storing the first output data, receiving, from a second device, second input data corresponding to a second natural language input (col. 21, lines 14 – 26 – discloses using a second device to resume the process and col. 25, lines 7-36 – “may resume the process by identifying the information about the pizza and requesting the time of delivery or billing details”; also see col. 29, lines 56 - col. 20, line 13);
performing processing using the second input data and the first output data to determine second language processing data corresponding to the information required to perform the first action; (col. 25, lines 7-36 – based on context can add a time of delivery for the pizza order; also see col. 29, lines 56 - col. 20, line 13);
performing processing with regard to the second language processing data to determine second output data associated with the first action (col. 25, lines 7-36 – for example, time of delivery field is now set; also see col. 29, lines 56 - col. 20, line 13);
determining, using the second output data, output audio data responsive to the second natural language input (col. 25, lines 7-36 – if every subtask is complete for pizza ordering, then generate synthesized output of confirmation of order as shown in fig 8, element 826 and col. 24, lines 61-67); and
sending the output audio data to the second device for output (col. 25, lines 7-36; col. 24, lines 61 - col. 25, line 6; fig 8, element 830).
Regarding claim 2, Kelly discloses wherein determining first data is needed to perform further processing comprises determining the first data is needed to execute a second action responsive to the first natural language input (col. 25, lines 7-36 – pizza order requires many sub-tasks such as size, toppings etc; col. 29, lines 4-42).
Regarding claim 3, Kelly discloses wherein:
the second data comprises audio data; and
the computer-implemented method further comprises performing speech synthesis to determine the second data (col. 25, lines 7-36 – “generate synthesized speech (e.g., ‘What toppings would you like on your pizza?’)”).
Regarding claim 4, Kelly discloses further comprising:
receiving third input data corresponding to a third natural language input representing a response to the second data; and
performing natural language processing using the third input data to determine the first data,
wherein the first output data is based at least in part on the first data (col. 25, lines 7-36 – “may request information about what type of pizza (e.g., size, toppings, crust, etc.)”);.
Regarding claim 5, Kelly discloses further comprising:
determining entity data corresponding to the first language processing data, wherein the first output data is based at least in part on the entity data (col. 25, lines 7-36 – Dominos pizza).
Regarding claim 6, Kelly discloses wherein: the first device is associated with a first profile; and the second device is associated with the first profile (col. 21, lines 2 – 26; see fig. 4).
Regarding claim 7, Kelly discloses wherein the first output data is associated with a first profile (col. 21, lines 2 – 26; col. 25, lines 7-36).
Regarding claim 9, Kelly discloses further comprising:
determining third data is needed to execute the first action corresponding to the second language processing data (col. 25, lines 7-36 – “may request information about what type of pizza (e.g., size, toppings, crust, etc.)”;
based at least in part on the first profile, determining fourth data corresponding to a request for the third data; and
sending the fourth data to the second device (col. 25, lines 7-36 – confirmation of order, proceeding to billing details or delivery time at the second device).
Regarding claim 10, Kelly discloses wherein:
the first device corresponds to a first profile (col. 21, lines 2 – 26; col. 25, lines 7-36);
the first profile corresponds to an enabled language processing component; and
the second language processing data corresponds to the enabled language processing component (col. 29, lines 4-55).
Regarding claim 11, see rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 12, see rejection of claim 2.
Regarding claim 13, see rejection of claim 3.
Regarding claim 14, see rejection of claim 4.
Regarding claim 15, see rejection of claim 5.
Regarding claim 16, see rejection of claim 6.
Regarding claim 17, see rejection of claim 7.
Regarding claim 19, see rejection of claim 9.
Regarding claim 20, see rejection of claim 10.
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.
Claims 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kelly et al. (US Patent 9,972,318) in view of Brown et al. (US Pub 2014/0245140).
Regarding claim 8, Kelly discloses further comprising:
determining third data is needed to execute the first action corresponding to the second language processing data (col. 25, lines 7-36 – confirmation of order, proceeding to billing details or delivery time);
determining fourth data corresponding to a request for the third data (col. 25, lines 7-36 – for example, need billing details);
Kelly does not disclose based at least in part on the first profile, determining a recipient device for the fourth data; and sending the fourth data to the recipient device.
Brown discloses based at least in part on the first profile, determining a recipient device for the fourth data; and sending the fourth data to the recipient device (para 0103; 0123-0127 – for example in the pizza example, bill payment for the order may be made via a smartphone).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kelly with the teachings of Brown in order to have added user benefit/flexibility of completing the task (pizza order) through a second device.
Regarding claim 18, see rejection of claim 8.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 NAFIZ E HOQUE whose telephone number is (571)270-1811. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Ahmad Matar can be reached at (571)272-7488. 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.
/NAFIZ E HOQUE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2693