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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4, 11 & 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Dependent claims 4, 11, 18 all recite the term “dynamically”. The specification does not provide some standard for measuring that degree.
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 1-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Step 1: The claims are directed to a method, non-transitory computer readable medium program product and a system which falls within one of the statutory categories of invention. Step 2A, Prong One: Independent claim(s) 1 & 20, recite(s) identifying, forwarding, retrieving, generating and sending and independent claims 8, 15 & 23 recite identifying, forwarding, retrieving, generating and sending. The claims and background of the application do not put any limits on the plain meanings of identifying, forwarding, retrieving, generating and sending. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the steps is that those steps fall with the mental process grouping of abstract ideas because they cover concepts performed in the human mind, selection by a human and/or can be presented using a piece of paper, including identifying, forwarding, retrieving, generating and sending. Step 2A, Prong Two: The claims recite a processor and memory. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because these limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on the claims. Again, the processor and memory perform their generic functions and is recited at a high level of generality. With these limitations, the processor and memory are used as a tool to perform the generic function of processing and storing data. Therefore, in these limitations the processor and memory are used to perform an abstract idea, as discussed above in Step, 2A, Prong One, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic processor and memory. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application, thus, these claims are directed to the judicial exception. Step 2B: As explained in the Step 2A, Prong Two, these are two additional elements. The additional elements of a “processor” and “memory” in the limitations are at best mere instructions to “apply” the abstract ideas, which cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f). . As discussed in Step 2A, Prong Two above, the recitations of “a processor and memory” are recited at a high level of generality. For example, in the originally filed specification states that a ”storage device” is any tangible device that can retain and store instructions for use by a computer processor. Therefore, even when considered in combination, “the generic computer components performing generic computer functions, alone, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Viewing the limitations in combination also fails to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claimed invention seeks to process instructions (collect and analyze information), providing instructions (generating and sending a response) and storing data, but these functions reflect ordinary usage typically performed by a generic computer, as would be recognized by those of ordinary skill in the field of data processing. Thus, whether viewed individually or in combination, the additional limitations do not amount to a claim as a whole that is significantly more than the abstract idea. Hence, the claims are patent ineligible.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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) 1-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Chowdhary et al. (U.S. Publication Number 2018/0052826).
Referring to claims 1, 8, 15, 20 & 23, Chowdhary et al. discloses comprising: identifying one or more speech goals of a user within input of the user to a conversational chatbot (second language); forwarding the identified speech goals and the input of the user to a large language model (LLM) utilized by the conversational chatbot (paragraphs 0034, 0038, 0039, 0041, 0042, 0044-0047, 0054, 0055, 0057, 0079 & 0080); based on the identified one or more speech goals and the input of the user, retrieving expert-crafted prompts for use with the LLM (paragraphs 0034, 0038, 0039, 0041, 0042, 0044-0047, 0054, 0055, 0057, 0079 & 0080); generating, via the LLM in combination with the retrieved expert-crafted prompts, a response to the user, wherein the response addresses an identified speech goal of the user (paragraphs 0034, 0038, 0039, 0041, 0042, 0044-0047, 0054, 0055, 0057, 0079 & 0080); and sending, via the conversational chatbot, the response to the user (Figs. 6-9).
Referring to claims 2, 9, 16, 21 & 24, Chowdhary et al. discloses wherein the expert-crafted prompts are engineered by language therapists (paragraphs 0034, 0038, 0039, 0041, 0042, 0044-0047, 0054, 0055, 0057, 0079 & 0080).
Referring to claims 3, 10, 17, 22 & 25, Chowdhary et al. discloses wherein the input of the user comprises information of the user, and wherein the LLM utilized by the conversational chatbot is adapted according to the information of the user (Figs. 6-9).
The method of claims 4, 11 & 18, Chowdhary et al. discloses further comprising: dynamically performing the identifying, the forwarding, the retrieving, the generating, and the sending until interaction between the user and the conversational chatbot is terminated (paragraphs 0034, 0038, 0039, 0041, 0042, 0044-0047, 0054, 0055, 0057, 0079 & 0080).
Referring to claims 5 & 12, Chowdhary et al. discloses wherein the input of the user comprises speech and/or video of the user captured by the conversational chatbot (Figs. 6-9).
Referring to claims 6, 13 & 19, Chowdhary et al. discloses wherein the LLM is capable of multimodal inputs, and wherein the generated response utilizes augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) techniques (paragraphs 0034, 0038, 0039, 0041, 0042, 0044-0047, 0054, 0055, 0057, 0079 & and Figs. 6-9).
Referring to claims 7 & 14, Chowdhary et al. discloses wherein the generated response comprises acknowledgment of the user's input and encouraging feedback for the user (paragraphs 0034, 0038, 0039, 0041, 0042, 0044-0047, 0054, 0055, 0057, 0079 & 0080).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KESHA FRISBY whose telephone number is (571)272-8774. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 730AM-4PM.
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, Xuan Thai can be reached at 571-272-7147. 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.
/KESHA FRISBY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715