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 .
This Office Action is in response to correspondence filed 25 March 2024 in reference to application 18/615,767. Claims 1-17 are pending and have been examined.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-7 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7 of U.S. Patent No. 11,941,420. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of 11,941,420 anticipate the instant claims and laid out in the chart below.
Instant Application
US Patent 11,941,420
Claim 1: A system comprising: memory storing instructions; one or more processors operable to execute the instructions to:
Claim 1: A method implemented by one or more processors, the method comprising:
receive one or more instances of natural language input during a communication session that includes a user computing device and an interactive communications system implemented by one or more of the processors, the instances of the natural language input including free-form input formulated by a user of the user computing device via a user interface input device of the user computing device;
receiving one or more instances of natural language input during a communication session that includes a user computing device and an interactive communications system implemented by one or more of the processors, the instances of the natural language input including free-form input formulated by a user of the user computing device via a user interface input device of the user computing device;
determine a current intent of the communication session and an action for the current intent, wherein determining the current intent and the action is based on processing the natural language input using one or more trained machine learning models;
receiving one or more instances of natural language input during a communication session that includes a user computing device and an interactive communications system implemented by one or more of the processors, the instances of the natural language input including free-form input formulated by a user of the user computing device via a user interface input device of the user computing device;
resolve an agent for the action;
resolving an agent for the action;
determine whether one or more criteria are satisfied for transmitting, to the user computing device, an action performance element that is based on the action;
determining whether one or more criteria are satisfied for transmitting, to the user computing device, an action performance element that is based on the action;
in response to determining that the one or more criteria are satisfied:
in response to determining that the one or more criteria are satisfied:
transmit, to the user computing device without first prompting any agent computing device of the agent, the action performance element that is based on the action; and
transmitting, to the user computing device without first prompting any agent computing device of the agent, the action performance element that is based on the action; and
in response to determining that the one or more criteria are not satisfied:
in response to determining that the one or more criteria are not satisfied
transmit, to an agent computing device of the agent, a prompt related to the action, wherein the agent computing device is distinct from the user computing device, and
transmitting, to an agent computing device of the agent, a prompt related to the action, wherein the agent computing device is distinct from the user computing device, and
then transmitting the action performance element to the user computing device only if affirmative input is received from the agent computing device in response to transmitting the prompt.
then transmitting the action performance element to the user computing device only if affirmative input is received from the agent computing device in response to transmitting the prompt.
Claim 2: The system of claim 1, wherein the one or more criteria include that a confidence score for the current intent satisfies a threshold.
Claim 2: The method of claim 1, wherein the one or more criteria include that the confidence score for the current intent satisfies a threshold.
Claim 3: The system of claim 2, wherein the threshold is a fixed threshold.
Claim 3: The method of claim 1, wherein the threshold is a fixed threshold.
Claim 4: The system of claim 1, wherein one or more of the processors are further operable to execute the instructions to:
Claim 4: The method of claim 1, further comprising:
determine whether agent specific parameters, that are specific to the agent, are available for the action;
determining whether agent specific parameters, that are specific to the agent, are available for the action;
wherein determining whether the one or more criteria are satisfied is based on whether the agent specific parameters are available for the action.
wherein determining whether the one or more criteria are satisfied is based on whether the agent specific parameters are available for the action.
Claim 5: The system of claim 4, wherein in determining whether the one or more criteria are satisfied based on whether the agent specific parameters are available for the action one or more of the processors are to:
Claim 5: The method of claim 4, wherein determining whether the one or more criteria are satisfied based on whether the agent specific parameters are available for the action comprises:
determine, in response to determining that the agent specific parameters are not available, that the one or more criteria are not satisfied.
determining, in response to determining that the agent specific parameters are not available, that the one or more criteria are not satisfied
Claim 6: The system of claim 1, wherein selection of the action performance element causes the user computing device to initiate performance of the action by causing the computing device to execute a separate application.
Claim 6: The method of claim 1, wherein selection of the action performance element causes the user computing device to initiate performance of the action by causing the computing device to execute a separate application.
Claim 7: The system of claim 1, wherein the one or more criteria are based on interactions of the agent in response to prompts related to the action and provided to the agent in past communication sessions.
Claim 7: The method of claim 1, wherein the one or more criteria are based on interactions of the agent in response to prompts related to the action and provided to the agent in past communication sessions.
Claim 8 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. 11,269,666. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim of 11,269,666 anticipates the instant claim and laid out in the chart below.
Instant Application
US Patent 11,269,666
Claim 8: A system comprising: memory storing instructions; one or more processors operable to execute the instructions to:
Claim 12: A method implemented by one or more processors, comprising:
receive natural language input during a communication session that includes a user computing device, the natural language input including free-form input formulated by a user of the user computing device via a user interface input device of the user computing device;
receiving natural language input during a communications session that includes a user computing device, the natural language input including free-form input formulated by a user of the user computing device via a user interface input device of the user computing device;
process the natural language input to determine a current intent of the communication session and determine an action for the current intent, wherein determining the current intent and the action is based on applying the natural language input to one or more trained machine learning models;
processing the natural language input to generate annotations of the natural language input; selecting, from a set of candidate intents, at least one current intent of the communications session, wherein selecting the current intent is based on applying the natural language input and the annotations to one or more intent models, the one or more intent models each being a trained machine learning model; determining an action for the selected current intent;
generate an action performance element based on the action and stored parameters for the action that are specific to the agent;
generating an action performance element based on the action and stored parameters for the action that are specific to the agent;
transmit, to an agent computing device associated with the agent, an indication of the action performance element; and
transmitting, to an agent computing device associated with the agent, an indication of the action performance element; and
receive an affirmative response from the agent computing device in response to transmitting the indication of the action performance element;
receiving an affirmative response from the agent computing device in response to transmitting the indication of the action performance element;
subsequent to and contingent on receiving the affirmative response from the agent computing device:
subsequent to and contingent on receiving the affirmative response from the agent computing device:
transmit the action performance element to the user computing device,
transmitting the action performance element to the user computing device,
wherein selection of the action performance element causes the user computing device to initiate performance of the action with the stored parameters for the action that are specific to the agent; and
wherein selection of the action performance element causes the user computing device to initiate performance of the action with the stored parameters for the action that are specific to the agent; and
based on receiving the affirmative response from the agent computing device, transmitting a subsequent action performance element, that is based on the action and the parameters that are specific to the agent, without first transmitting any indication of the action performance element to the agent computing device.
based on receiving the affirmative response from the agent computing device, transmitting a subsequent action performance element, that is based on the action and the parameters that are specific to the agent, without first transmitting any indication of the action performance element to the agent computing device.
Claims 9, 16, and 17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. 11,269,666 in view of Williams et al. (US PAP 2009/0228264).
Consider claim 9, U.S. Patent No. 11,269,666 claims the system of claim 8, but does not specifically claim wherein transmitting the indication of the action performance element causes the agent computing device to render a prompt for confirmation that transmitting the action performance element to the user computing device is acceptable.
In the same field of agent assisted dialog systems, Williams teaches wherein transmitting the indication of the action performance element causes the agent computing device to render a prompt for confirmation that transmitting the action performance element to the user computing device is acceptable (0012, agent user interface, 0066, providing suggested responses to an agent for selection, also 0074).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to present options to an agent through a prompt as taught by Williams in the claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,269,666 in order to allow an agent to effectively guide the automated conversation where necessary.
Consider claim 16, Williams teaches The system of claim 9, wherein the communication session includes an output rendered to the user of the user computing device prior to receiving the natural language input (0065 providing automated greeting before excepting user input).
Consider claim 17, Williams teaches The system of claim 16, wherein one or more of the processors are further operable to execute the instructions to:
transmit, to the agent computing device associated with the agent, an output transcript for the output (0129 transcript may be provided to agent).
wherein transmitting the output transcript causes the agent computing device to render the output transcript along with rendering of the prompt (0129 transcript may be provided to agent, 0012, agent GUI).
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Williams et al (US PAP 2009/0228264).
Consider claim 1, Williams teaches A system (abstract) comprising:
memory storing instructions (claim 12 indicates computer implemented which means memory);
one or more processors (claim 12, processors) operable to execute the instructions to:
receive one or more instances of natural language input during a communication session that includes a user computing device and an interactive communications system implemented by one or more of the processors, the instances of the natural language input including free-form input formulated by a user of the user computing device via a user interface input device of the user computing device (0060, arbitrary natural language query may be spoken or entered by user);
determine a current intent of the communication session and an action for the current intent, wherein determining the current intent and the action is based on processing the natural language input using one or more trained machine learning models (0060, determine matching concepts (intents) and transitions (actions) that closely match query);
resolve an agent for the action (0060, 0068, switching to agent assistance where necessary);
determine whether one or more criteria are satisfied for transmitting, to the user computing device, an action performance element that is based on the action (0060, 65, and 68, determining matching transitions with sufficient confidence);
in response to determining that the one or more criteria are satisfied:
transmit, to the user computing device without first prompting any agent computing device of the agent, the action performance element that is based on the action (0065, 0068, if sufficient confidence, system automatically provides a response to the customer); and
in response to determining that the one or more criteria are not satisfied:
transmit, to an agent computing device of the agent, a prompt related to the action, wherein the agent computing device is distinct from the user computing device (0066, 0068, if not sufficient confidence, providing prompt to human agent to select from responses), and
then transmitting the action performance element to the user computing device only if affirmative input is received from the agent computing device in response to transmitting the prompt (0068, human agent selects a response which is then provided to the customer).
Consider claim 2, Williams teaches The system of claim 1, wherein the one or more criteria include that a confidence score for the current intent satisfies a threshold (0068, “sufficient confidence” which is a threshold, also 0060 and 0070).
Consider claim 3, Williams teaches The system of claim 2, wherein the threshold is a fixed threshold (0070, “set” confidence threshold).
Consider claim 7, Williams teaches The system of claim 1, wherein the one or more criteria are based on interactions of the agent in response to prompts related to the action and provided to the agent in past communication sessions (0059, previous conversations are used to build knowledge base that is used to match to determine concepts and transitions.).
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) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams in view of Chen et al. (US PAP 2017/0301348).
Consider claim 6, Williams teaches The system of claim 1, but does not specifically teach wherein selection of the action performance element causes the user computing device to initiate performance of the action by causing the computing device to execute a separate application.
In the same field of voice systems, Chen teaches wherein selection of the action performance element causes the user computing device to initiate performance of the action by causing the computing device to execute a separate application (0015, opening an application in response to a voice command).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to open applications as taught by Chen in the system of Williams in order to allow the user a convenient way to open applications without having to navigate a GUI.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 5 would be allowable if rewritten or a terminal disclaimer field to overcome the rejection(s) under non-statutory double patenting doctrine, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Consider claim 4, Williams teaches the system of claim 1, but do not specifically teach “wherein one or more of the processors are further operable to execute the instructions to: determine whether agent specific parameters, that are specific to the agent, are available for the action; wherein determining whether the one or more criteria are satisfied is based on whether the agent specific parameters are available for the action” when combined with each and every other limitation of the claim, the base claim and any intervening claims. Rather, Williams generally assigns available agents to intervene but does not use agent specific parameters to do so. Therefore claim 4 contains allowable subject matter.
Claim depends on and further limits claim 4 and therefore contains allowable subject matter as well.
Claims 8-17 would be allowable if rewritten or amended or a terminal disclaimer filed to overcome the applicable rejection(s) under non-statutory double patenting doctrine set forth in this Office action.
Consider claim 8, Williams teaches a system (abstract) comprising:
memory storing instructions (claim 12 indicates computer implemented which means memory);
one or more processors (claim 12, processors) operable to execute the instructions to:
receive natural language input during a communication session that includes a user computing device, the natural language input including free-form input formulated by a user of the user computing device via a user interface input device of the user computing device (0060, arbitrary natural language query may be spoken or entered by user);
process the natural language input to determine a current intent of the communication session and determine an action for the current intent, wherein determining the current intent and the action is based on applying the natural language input to one or more trained machine learning models (0060, determine matching concepts (intents) and transitions (actions) that closely match query);
generate an action performance element based on the action and stored parameters for the action (0066, 0068, if not sufficient confidence, generating prompt to human agent to select from responses);
transmit, to an agent computing device associated with the agent, an indication of the action performance element (0066, 0068, if not sufficient confidence, providing prompt to human agent to select from responses); and
receive an affirmative response from the agent computing device in response to transmitting the indication of the action performance element (0066, human agent selects response for user);
subsequent to and contingent on receiving the affirmative response from the agent computing device:
transmit the action performance element to the user computing device, wherein selection of the action performance element causes the user computing device to initiate performance of the action with the stored parameters for the action that are specific to the agent (0068, human agent selects a response which is then provided to the customer).
However Williams does not specifically teach or fairly suggest the limitations of
“generate an action performance element based on the action and stored parameters for the action that are specific to the agent…
based on receiving the affirmative response from the agent computing device, transmitting a subsequent action performance element, that is based on the action and the parameters that are specific to the agent, without first transmitting any indication of the action performance element to the agent computing device” when combined with each and every other limitation of the claims. Rather, Williams does not user agent specific parameters and does not automatically perform actions without intervention subsequently without additional training. Therefore claim 8 contains allowable subject matter.
Claims 9-17 depend on and further limit claim 8 and therefore contains allowable subject matter as well.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Weng et al (US PAP 2010/0124325) teaches a similar method of hybrid automated and live agent systems.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOUGLAS C GODBOLD whose telephone number is (571)270-1451. The examiner can normally be reached 6:30am-5pm Monday-Thursday.
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, Andrew Flanders can be reached at (571)272-7516. 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.
DOUGLAS GODBOLD
Examiner
Art Unit 2655
/DOUGLAS GODBOLD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2655