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 § 103
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 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 1-5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 17, 19-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dressler, II ( U.S. 2024/0403567 A1) in view of Rodger et al. (U.S. 12,231,380 B1).
Re claim 1, Dressler discloses a computing system for providing a contextualized response, the computing system comprising: a processing system, and memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processing system (e.g. Figures 1-6), cause the computing system to: receive chat input, from a user of a chat agent, via a chat interface (e.g. Figures 2 and 6); generate a request for a language model (LM) including: the chat input, provide the request to the LM, in response to the request, receive a response from the LM (e.g. page 4 paragraphs [0027-0028]); generate a user-tailored chat response based on the response received from the LM; and surface the user-tailored chat response in the chat interface (e.g. pages 1-2 paragraph [0016] and page 4 paragraphs [0027-0028]);
Dressler fail to discloses execute, based on the chat input, a search query over prior conversations of the user to identify at least one relevant prior conversation generate a summary of the at least one relevant prior conversation summary of the at least one relevant prior conversation.
However, Rodgers et al. disclose execute, based on the chat input, a search query over prior conversations of the user to identify at least one relevant prior conversation generate a summary of the at least one relevant prior conversation summary of the at least one relevant prior conversation (e.g. pages 13 col.13 lines 22 through col. 14 lines 55).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate relevant prior conversation summary of the at lease one relevant prior conversation as seen in Rodgers et al.’s invention into Dressler’s invention because it would enhance information for facilitating resolution of the service request.
Re claim 2, Dressler further discloses the received chat input is included in a current chat session (e.g. page 1 paragraph [0027]) and the prior conversations (e.g. prior conversations are transcript of the previous chat session which is store in the database) are included in at least one separate chat session (e.g. page 2 paragraph [0017]).
Re claim 3, Dressler further discloses generate another LM request including at least one of the prior conversations, between the user and the chat agent, and instructions instructing the LM to extract data from the at least one of the prior conversations, receive the extracted data as output from the LM, and store the extracted data as user-profile data in a user profile of the user (e.g. Figure 4, page 10 paragraphs [0054-0055]).
Re claim 4, Dressler further discloses request the LM to identify a topic of the chat input and the user-tailored chat response, receive a response from the LM including the topic (e.g. personalized conversational) and store the topic in the user profile (e.g. pages 8-9 paragraph [0048]).
Re claim 5, Dressler further discloses the chat input comprises a plurality of chat inputs, the user-tailored chat response comprises a plurality of user-tailored chat responses generated based on the plurality of chat inputs, and the topic includes at least one topic (e.g. pages 8-9 paragraph [0048]).
Re claim 7, Dressler further discloses the prior conversations are stored in a prior conversation store (e.g. database, pages 8-9 paragraph [0048]).
Re claim 8, Dressler further discloses the request for the LM includes at least a prior response or a prior input of the identified at least one relevant prior conversation (e.g. pages 8-10 paragraphs [0048, 0052]).
Re claim 10, Dressler further discloses executing the search query over the prior conversations includes performing an embedding comparison between an embedding generated for at least the chat input and embeddings generated for the prior conversations (e.g. page 7 paragraph [0041]).
Re claim 11, Dressler further discloses the request for the LM is an artificial intelligence (AI) prompt and the LM is a generative AI model that processes the request by employing an encoder-decoder structure and self-attention mechanisms for multiple layers of a transformer-based neural network (e.g.. page 4 paragraph [0028], page 5 paragraph [0034]).
Re claim 17, it is computer implemented method claim has similar limitations cited in claim 1. Thus, claim 17 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 1.
Re claim 19, Dressler further discloses generating a second request for a language model (LM) providing the second request to the LM, receiving a second response from the LM based on the second request, the second response (e.g. page 7 paragraph [0042]).
Dressler fail to discloses including the relevant prior conversation and instructions to summarize at least a portion of the relevant prior conversation, including a summary of the relevant prior conversation.
However, Rodgers et al. disclose including the relevant prior conversation and instructions to summarize at least a portion of the relevant prior conversation, including a summary of the relevant prior conversation (e.g. pages 13 col.13 lines 22 through col. 14 lines 55).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate relevant prior conversation summary of the at lease one relevant prior conversation as seen in Rodgers et al.’s invention into Dressler’s invention because it would enhance information for facilitating resolution of the service request.
Re claim 20, Dressler further discloses generating a second request, prior to generating the first request, to the LM, the second request including the chat input and instructions to generate a search query for the chat input, transmitting the second request to the LM, and receiving, in response to the second request, the search query for the chat input, wherein executing the search of the plurality of prior conversations is performed with the search query (e.g. pages 8-9 paragraph [0048]).
Re claim 21, Dressler further discloses the LM is first LM (e.g. Dressler, page 4 paragraphs [0027-0028]), and the summary is generated using a second LM (e.g. Rodger (e.g. pages 13 col.13 lines 22 through col. 14 lines 55).
Re claim 22, Dressler in view of Rodger discloses the summary is generated using the LM (e.g. Rodger, pages 13 col.13 lines 22 through col. 14 lines 55).
Re claim 23, Dressler further discloses the LM is first LM (e.g. Dressler, page 4 paragraphs [0027-0028]), and the summary is generated using a second LM (e.g. Rodger (e.g. pages 13 col.13 lines 22 through col. 14 lines 55).
Re claim 24, Dressler in view of Rodger discloses the summary is generated using the LM (e.g. Rodger, pages 13 col.13 lines 22 through col. 14 lines 55).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12, and 14-16 are allowed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. 12,231,380 B1.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 PHUOC H NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-3919. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 7:30 am -3:30 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, 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.
/PHUOC H NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2451