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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02/03/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
The applicant's arguments/remarks, see page 5 – 7, with respect to 35 U.S.C 103 rejection of Claims 1-10 and 12-15 have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection. The arguments/remarks are essentially directed towards the newly introduced limitations and they are addressed in this Office Action, below.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1 and 14 recite "the discussion exchange" without having antecedent basis.
Appropriate correction(s) is/are required.
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(s) 1-2, 8-10 and 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luechtefeld et al. (US PAT 8898098), hereinafter "Luechtefeld" in views of Laird_Mcconnell et al. (US PG PUB 20220303153), hereinafter "Laird".
Regarding Claim 1, Luechtefeld discloses:
A method of processing communication data between a plurality of terminals running an instant messaging application in which users participating in a discussion exchange messages via respective terminals (i.e. method/system for processing communication between a plurality of workstations [i.e. a plurality of user terminals] running messaging application in which users participating in a group conversation [i.e. users participating in a discussion exchange messages]) (Fig. 2, Fig. 3, Column 8 Line # 9 - 19 and Column 14 Line # 42 – 60),
the method, implemented by a computerized chatbot (i.e. the method performed by artificially intelligent system [i.e. a computerized chatbot]) (Column 8 Line # 49 – 67), comprising:
analyzing the exchanged messages in order to identify a current discussion context (i.e. the artificially intelligent system may analyze the messages exchanged among the members of the group during the discussion in order to identify whether there exists dominating behavior, absence of discussion, agreement without discussion, etc. [i.e. a current discussion context] among the members of the discussion group; For example, the artificially intelligent system may analyze absolute words, e.g. clear, impossible, etc., contained in the messages to identify dominating behavior [i.e. a current discussion context] in the members of the group during the discussion) (Column 25 Line # 3 – 6 and Column 25 Line # 16 – 52),
determining a relevance of the chatbot intervening in the discussion, on the basis of the current context and on the basis of predetermined rules (i.e. the artificially intelligent system [i.e. the chatbot] may determine that it needs to intervene [i.e. a relevance of the chatbot intervening] in the discussion based on the determination of the presence of dominating behavior, absence of discussion, agreement without discussion, etc. [i.e. on the basis of the current context] and based on a set of rules defined by the users [i.e. on the basis of predetermined rules]) (Fig. 4B, Fig. 4D, Column 11 Line # 21 – 32 and Column 30 Line # 20 - 29), and
on the basis of the determination, sending, to at least one of the participants, at least one message appropriate to the current context and to at least one of the participants (i.e. based on determination to intervene [i.e. on the basis of the determination], the artificially intelligent system may send a message, e.g. “Jerry said, I’ll tell you, it makes and impression on me if George Hardy says he's appalled at something we recommend. What is it, specifically, that makes an impression on you? Be careful that authority does not override safety considerations or facts?”, in order to notify the members/participants that assertion of authority [i.e. dominating behavior / the current context] during the discussion does not override safety considerations [i.e. at least one message appropriate to the current context]) (Column 20 Line # 35 - 67).
However, Luechtefel does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the at least one appropriated message includes an assignation of a task to at least one of the participants based on the discussion exchange, the chatbot acting thereby as an active task assigner.
On the other hand, in the same field of endeavor, Laird teaches:
wherein the at least one appropriated message includes an assignation of a task to at least one of the participants based on the discussion exchange, the chatbot acting thereby as an active task assigner (i.e. during a meeting, AI engine [i.e. the chatbot] may analyze conversations/communications [i.e. the discussion exchange] in real-time; Next, based on the analysis of the conversations/communications [i.e. based on the discussion exchange], AI engine [i.e. the chatbot] may identify and add a task to a task list [i.e. assignation of a task] of the client system associated with a meeting participant; Then, the user interface of the client system may display a task list [i.e. the at least one appropriated message] including the tasks assigned during the meeting [i.e. an assignation of a task] to the participant; Note that AI engine [i.e. the chatbot] identify and add tasks to the task list in real-time [i.e. the chatbot acting thereby as an active task assigner]) (330D - Fig. 3D, 410, 418, 422 & 424 – Fig. 4, ¶ 0026, ¶ 0058, ¶ 0068 and ¶ 0072).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method/device/computer-readable-medium of Luechtefeld to include the feature wherein the at least one appropriated message includes an assignation of a task to at least one of the participants based on the discussion exchange, the chatbot acting thereby as an active task assigner as taught by Laird so that user interface of client meeting application may display tasks assigned during the meeting (¶ 0026).
Regarding Claim 2, Luechtefeld and Laird disclose, in particular Luechtefeld teaches:
wherein the predetermined rules include at least the detection of a wake-up word for the chatbot in a latest message of the discussion (i.e. the predetermined rules for artificially intelligent system may include detection of the absolute words, e.g. can’t, impossible, etc. [i.e. a wake-up word for the chatbot], in the messages [i.e. a latest message of the discussion]) (Column 25 Line # 19 - 27).
Regarding Claim 8, Luechtefeld and Laird disclose, in particular Luechtefeld teaches:
in order to formulate a message to be sent: accessing a knowledge database, identifying a subject in the database linked to at least one last message in the discussion (i.e. the artificially intelligent agent may access database [i.e. knowledge database] in order to identify dipole statements [i.e. a subject in the database] included [i.e. linked to] in the message in the discussion) (Column 28 Line # 24 - 48), and
forming an informative message to be sent, comprising data from the knowledge base (i.e. the artificially intelligent agent may generate intervening message, e.g. "It seems that you may be stating your positions without explaining---” [i.e. an informative message to be sent], which is generated based on interventions and rule sets stored in the database [i.e. comprising data from the knowledge base]) (Column 26 Line # 5 – 10 and Column 28 Line # 24 - 48).
Regarding Claim 9, Luechtefeld and Laird disclose, in particular Luechtefeld teaches:
wherein the discussion is planned within a professional, collaborative work framework, and the knowledge database includes information specific to a professional sector of the collaborative work framework (i.e. discussion may be in within team work and business setting [i.e., a professional, collaborative work framework; and the database contain potential dipole statements that may arise during a team discussion [i.e. the knowledge database includes information specific to a professional sector of the collaborative work framework]) (Column 20 Line # 37 – 67, Column 26 Line # 5 – 10 and Column 28 Line # 24 - 48).
Regarding Claim 10, Luechtefeld and Laird disclose, in particular Luechtefeld teaches:
wherein the messages sent by the chatbot include professional tasks assigned to at least some of the participants in the discussion, the method comprising a consultation of the knowledge base in order to organize a sequential coordination of the assigned professional tasks, based on an identification of the participants in the discussion (i.e. based on the dipole statements included in the database [i.e. a consultation of the knowledge base], the Artificially Intelligent Agent will request [i.e. professional tasks assigned to at least some of the participants in the discussion] that the team member [i.e. based on an identification of the participants in the discussion] citing a non-participant contact the non-participant and request that non-participant join the conversation [i.e. organize a sequential coordination of the assigned professional tasks] by any one of the means of communication conversant with the system) (Column 20 Line # 28 – 33, Column 26 Line # 5 – 10 and Column 28 Line # 24 - 48).
Regarding Claim 12, Luechtefeld and Laird disclose, in particular Luechtefeld teaches:
A computer-readable non-transitory storage medium on which a computer program is stored for implementing the method according to claim 1 the computer program is executed by a processor (i.e. the method is implemented as computerized [i.e. the computer program is executed by a processor], networked complex employing an expert, rule-based, or other artificially intelligence-based (e.g., artificial neural network, genetic algorithm, etc.) system for facilitating team proceedings wherein the artificially intelligent system monitors patterns of interaction in the exchange of information between team members) (Column 10 Line # 32 – 60).
Regarding Claim 13, Luechtefeld and Laird disclose, in particular Luechtefeld teaches:
A computing device comprising an interface for communicating with an instant messaging server and a processing circuit configured for accessing a memory storing predetermined rules of a chatbot in order to implement the method according to claim 1 (i.e. the method is implemented as computerized, networked complex employing an expert, rule-based [i.e. an interface for communicating with an instant messaging server and a processing circuit configured for accessing a memory storing predetermined rules], or other artificially intelligence-based (e.g., artificial neural network, genetic algorithm, etc.) system for facilitating team proceedings wherein the artificially intelligent system monitors patterns of interaction in the exchange of information between team members) (Fig. 2 and Column 10 Line # 32 – 60).
Regarding Claim 14, Luechtefeld discloses:
A chatbot server processing communication data between a plurality of terminals running an instant messaging application in which users participating in a discussion exchange messages via respective terminals (i.e. a system comprised of servers for processing communication between a plurality of workstations [i.e. a plurality of user terminals] running messaging application in which users participating in a group conversation [i.e. users participating in a discussion exchange messages]) (Fig. 2, Fig. 3, Column 8 Line # 9 - 19 and Column 14 Line # 42 – 60),
the chatbot server comprising: a message generator capable of analyzing the exchanged messages in order to identify a current discussion context (i.e. the artificially intelligent system may analyze the messages exchanged among the members of the group during the discussion in order to identify whether there exists dominating behavior, absence of discussion, agreement without discussion, etc. [i.e. a current discussion context] among the members of the discussion group; For example, the artificially intelligent system may analyze absolute words, e.g. clear, impossible, etc., contained in the messages to identify dominating behavior [i.e. a current discussion context] in the members of the group during the discussion) (Column 25 Line # 3 – 6 and Column 25 Line # 16 – 52),
determining a relevance of the chatbot intervening in the discussion on the basis of the current context and on the basis of predetermined rules (i.e. the artificially intelligent system [i.e. the chatbot] may determine that it needs to intervene [i.e. a relevance of the chatbot intervening] in the discussion based on the determination of the presence of dominating behavior, absence of discussion, agreement without discussion, etc. [i.e. on the basis of the current context] and based on a set of rules defined by the users [i.e. on the basis of predetermined rules]) (Fig. 4B, Fig. 4D, Column 11 Line # 21 – 32 and Column 30 Line # 20 - 29),
providing a message appropriate to the current context and to at least one of the participants, and an interface for communicating with an instant messaging server capable of sending the at least one appropriate message to the at least one of the participants (i.e. based on determination to intervene [i.e. on the basis of the determination], the artificially intelligent system may send a message, e.g. “Jerry said, I’ll tell you, it makes and impression on me if George Hardy says he's appalled at something we recommend. What is it, specifically, that makes an impression on you? Be careful that authority does not override safety considerations or facts?”, via network [i.e. an interface for communicating with an instant messaging server] in order to notify the members/participants that assertion of authority [i.e. dominating behavior / the current context] during the discussion does not override safety considerations [i.e. at least one message appropriate to the current context]) (Column 20 Line # 35 - 67).
However, Luechtefel does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the message includes an assignation of a task to at least one of the participants based on the discussion exchange, the chatbot acting thereby as an active task assigner.
On the other hand, in the same field of endeavor, Laird teaches:
wherein the message includes an assignation of a task to at least one of the participants based on the discussion exchange, the chatbot acting thereby as an active task assigner (i.e. during a meeting, AI engine [i.e. the chatbot] may analyze conversations/communications [i.e. the discussion exchange] in real-time; Next, based on the analysis of the conversations/communications [i.e. based on the discussion exchange], AI engine [i.e. the chatbot] may identify and add a task to a task list [i.e. assignation of a task] of the client system associated with a meeting participant; Then, the user interface of the client system may display a task list [i.e. the message] including the tasks assigned during the meeting [i.e. an assignation of a task] to the participant; Note that AI engine [i.e. the chatbot] identify and add tasks to the task list in real-time [i.e. the chatbot acting thereby as an active task assigner]) (330D - Fig. 3D, 410, 418, 422 & 424 – Fig. 4, ¶ 0026, ¶ 0058, ¶ 0068 and ¶ 0072).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method/device/computer-readable-medium of Luechtefeld to include the feature wherein the message includes an assignation of a task to at least one of the participants based on the discussion exchange, the chatbot acting thereby as an active task assigner as taught by Laird so that user interface of client meeting application may display tasks assigned during the meeting (¶ 0026).
Claim(s) 3-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luechtefeld in views of Laird as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Herold et al. (US PG PUB 20120030301), hereinafter "Harold".
Regarding Claim 3, Luechtefeld and Laird disclose all the features with respect to Claim 1 described above.
However, the combination of Luechtefeld and Laird does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the predetermined rules include at least one detection of a length of time, during which the exchange of messages in the discussion has stopped, exceeding a threshold.
On the other hand, in the same field of endeavor, Herold teaches:
wherein the predetermined rules include at least one detection of a length of time, during which the exchange of messages in the discussion has stopped, exceeding a threshold (i.e. a BOT may be used to monitor conversation among chat participants in a chat room. When a pause of a predetermined length [i.e. a length of time, during which the exchange of messages in the discussion has stopped, exceeding a threshold] is detected [i.e. the predetermined rules include at least one detection of a length of time], the BOT may interject a question or comment to help stimulate additional conversation between the chat participants in the icebreaker group) (¶ 0018).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method/device/computer-readable-medium of Luechtefeld and Laird to include the feature wherein the predetermined rules include at least one detection of a length of time, during which the exchange of messages in the discussion has stopped, exceeding a threshold as taught by Harold so that the chatbot may stimulate additional conversation between the chat participants by interjecting a question or comment once a pause of the discussion is detected (¶ 0018).
Regarding Claim 4, Luechtefeld and Laird discloses all the features with respect to Claim 1 described above.
However, the combination of Luechtefeld and Laird does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the predetermined rules include at least one detection of a mood of at least one of the participants and a taking into account of said the mood in sending or not sending a message responding to a message from said the at least one of the participants.
On the other hand, in the same field of endeavor, Herold teaches:
wherein the predetermined rules include at least one detection of a mood of at least one of the participants and a taking into account of said the mood in sending or not sending a message responding to a message from said the at least one of the participants (i.e. the predetermined rules may include detection of a potential uncomfortable or unwelcome condition [i.e. a mood] created by a particular chat participant [i.e. a mood of at least one of the participants], and the bot may take into account the detection of such condition [i.e. the mood] in informing the chat participants that such condition is unacceptable [i.e. sending or not sending a message responding to a message from said the at least one of the participants]) (¶ 0019 - 0021).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method/device/computer-readable-medium of Luechtefeld and Laird to include the feature wherein the predetermined rules include at least one detection of a mood of at least one of the participants and a taking into account of said the mood in sending or not sending a message responding to a message from said the at least one of the participants as taught by Harold in order to provide safe environment for the chat participants (¶ 0019 - 0021).
Regarding Claim 5, Luechtefeld, Laird and Harold disclose, in particular Harold teaches:
wherein, in the event the response message is sent, the response message sent is adapted to said the mood of the at least one of the participants (i.e. informing the chat participants [i.e. , the response message sent] that causing uncomfortable or unwelcome condition is unacceptable is based on [i.e. adapted to] the detection of a potential uncomfortable or unwelcome condition [i.e. the mood] for a particular chat participant) (¶ 0019 – 0021).
The prior art used in the rejection of the current claim is combined using the same motivations as was applied in claim 4.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luechtefeld in views of Laird further in views of Harold as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Joseph et al. (US PG PUB 20210134062), hereinafter "Joseph".
Regarding Claim 6, Luechtefeld, Laird and Harold disclose all the features with respect to Claim 4 as described above.
However, the combination of Luechtefeld, Laird and Harold does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the exchanged messages are spoken, and detection of the mood of the at least one of the participants is enhanced by detecting voice components in the voice message of the at least one of the participants.
On the other hand, in the same field of endeavor, Joseph teaches:
wherein the exchanged messages are spoken (i.e. interactions among plurality of users [i.e. the exchanged messages] are in speech format [i.e. spoken]) (¶ 0018), and
detection of the mood of the at least one of the participants is enhanced by detecting voice components in the voice message of the at least one of the participants (i.e. the method/system may detect emotion [i.e. mood] of a user [i.e. the at least one of the participants] based on speech data [i.e. detecting voice components in the voice message] from the user [i.e. the at least one of the participants]) (¶ 0018).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method/device/computer-readable-medium of Luechtefeld, Laird and Harold to include the feature wherein the exchanged messages are spoken, and detection of the mood of the at least one of the participants is enhanced by detecting voice components in the voice message of the at least one of the participants as taught by Joseph in order to detect the mood from speech data and physiological signals (¶ 0018).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luechtefeld in views of Laird further in views of Harold as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Alikaniotis et al. (US PAT 11763085 ), hereinafter "Alikaniotis".
Regarding Claim 7, Luechtefeld, Laird and Harold disclose all the features with respect to Claim 4 as described above.
However, the combination of Luechtefeld, Laird and Harold does not explicitly disclose:
analyzing each message from a participant before publication for the other participants in the discussion, in order to detect a mood of the participant on the basis of the message to be published, in the event that a mood is detected that reflects a predefined emotion with a score exceeding a threshold, correcting the message before publication so as to reduce the score, and publishing the corrected message to the participants in the discussion.
On the other hand, in the same field of endeavor, Alikaniotis teaches:
analyzing each message from a participant before publication for the other participants in the discussion, in order to detect a mood of the participant on the basis of the message to be published (i.e. the method/system may analyze, prior to the user selecting a “send” element to initiate sending [i.e. before publication for the participant in the discussion], an input text sequence, e.g. instant message [i.e. each message from a participant] in order to detect tone [i.e. a mood] of the user based on the input text sequence, e.g. “I think the situation is very bad” 702 [i.e. on the basis of the message to be published]) (702 - Fig. 5G, Column 19 Line # 61 – 65 and Column 20 Line # 43 - 57),
in the event that a mood is detected that reflects a predefined emotion with a score exceeding a threshold, correcting the message before publication so as to reduce the score, and publishing the corrected message to the participants in the discussion (i.e. the method/system may assign polarity and numerical value [i.e. score] indicating the intensity to tone [i.e. mood]; In the event of the tone [i.e. a mood] having negative polarity [i.e. predefined emotion] and its value greater than zero [i.e. a predefined emotion with a score exceeding a threshold], the method/system may generate a modification to the text sequence 702, e.g. substituting the phrase “very bad” 704 in the text sequence 702 with “not ideal” 708 [i.e. correcting the message] prior to the user selecting the “send” to initiate sending [i.e. before publication] in order to make the tone of the input text sequence more neutral [i.e. to reduce the score] ) (704 & 708 – Fig. 5G, Column 7 Line # 63 – 67, Column 8 Line # 1 – 12 and Column 20 Line # 43 - 57).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method/device/computer-readable-medium of Luechtefeld, Laird and Harold to include the feature analyzing each message from a participant before publication for the other participants in the discussion, in order to detect a mood of the participant on the basis of the message to be published, in the event that a mood is detected that reflects a predefined emotion with a score exceeding a threshold, correcting the message before publication so as to reduce the score, and publishing the corrected message to the participants in the discussion as taught by Alikaniotis so that the system may modify a message if a negative mood is detected with respect to the message (704 & 708 – Fig. 5G, Column 7 Line # 63 – 67, Column 8 Line # 1 – 12 and Column 20 Line # 43 - 57).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luechtefeld in views of Laird as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Scholar (US PG PUB 20180308473), hereinafter "Scholar".
Regarding Claim 15, Luechtefeld and Laird disclose all the features with respect to Claim 1 as described above.
However, the combination of Luechtefeld and Laird does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the assignation of the task is further based on profiles of the participants.
On the other hand, in the same field of endeavor, Scholar teaches:
wherein the assignation of the task is further based on profiles of the participants (i.e. intelligent virtual assistant Abby displays the recommended tasks the user should be doing [i.e. the assignation of the task]. These tasks can be based upon the profile that Abby has for the user [i.e. based on profiles of the participants]. The tasks can also be assigned, customized, or personalized by the Abby portal, the interface through which users interact with Abby) (¶ 0782).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method/device/computer-readable-medium of Luechtefeld and Laird to include the feature wherein the assignation of the task is further based on profiles of the participants as taught by Scholar so that the method/system may recommend/assign tasks the user should be doing based upon the profile of the user (¶ 0782).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SOE MIN HLAING whose telephone number is (303)297-4282. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM - 5PM.
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, Christopher Parry can be reached at 571-272-8328. 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.
/Soe Hlaing/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2451