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 the submission filed April 4, 4024. Claims 1-20 are pending.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claims 1, 8, and 18 are directed to methods, systems and computer readable mediums for processing explicit chatbot invocations. The claims recite limitations for accessing, by one or more processors, an utterance is a data gathering step that can be achieved by a person hearing a user speak the utterance; determining, by the one or more processors, whether or not a portion of the utterance includes a word that uniquely identifies a chatbot from among a plurality of chatbots based on applying an invocation rule to the portion can be achieved by the person understanding the utterance and deciding that the utterance includes specific words related or representative of a chatbot or specific task/request ; in response to determining that the portion includes the word that uniquely identifies the chatbot, processing, by the one or more processors, the portion to generate a processed portion and invoking the chatbot using the processed portion can be achieved by the person understanding the specifics/requirements of the request within the utterance and completing the request ; and in response to determining that the portion does not include the word that uniquely identifies the chatbot, performing, by the one or more processors, intent classification on the portion to identify an intent for the portion and invoking another chatbot among the plurality of chatbots based on an intent can be achieved by the person processing the utterance to understand the intent of the request and then completing the request once the intention is determined.
The recited limitations are directed a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of the generic chatbot, system, processor, instructions, and generic computer components. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the recited generic chatbot, system, processor, instructions, and generic computer components amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, the elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea. The claims are not patent eligible.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as indicated with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of the generic chatbot, system, processor, instructions, and generic computer components to perform the various steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The limitations of the dependent claims are directed to steps of analyzing, determining and processing utterances, requests and intentions; and performing determined requests/tasks. The recited limitations of the dependent claims are directed to steps that can be performed by mental processing and/or pen and paper.
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 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-17 of U.S. Patent No. 11,978,472. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the instant application are encompassed or made obvious within the claims of US Patent No. 11,978,472.
Claims of 18/626613
Claims of 11,978,472
A method comprising
A method comprising:
accessing, by one or more processors, an utterance;
receiving, by a computer system implementing a plurality of chatbots, an utterance, wherein the utterance comprises text forming at least a sentence fragment;
parsing, by the computer system, the utterance to identify a sentence structure of the utterance; determining, by the computer system and based on a plurality of detection rules, that the sentence structure of the utterance corresponds to a pattern representing multiple intents; splitting, by the computer system, the utterance into a first portion and a second portion based on the pattern;
determining, by the one or more processors, whether or not a portion of the utterance includes a word that uniquely identifies a chatbot from among a plurality of chatbots based on applying an invocation rule to the portion;
determining, by the computer system, that at least one word included in a first portion of the utterance matches at least one word of an invocation name of a first chatbot of the plurality of chatbots, wherein the invocation name uniquely identifies the first chatbot from other chatbots of the plurality of chatbots; in response to determining that the at least one word included in the first portion of the utterances matches the at least one word of the invocation name of the first chatbot, generating, by the computer system, an input for the first chatbot, wherein generating the input for the first chatbot comprises removing a portion of the utterance based on applying one or more invocation rules to the utterance, the portion of the utterance comprising the invocation name of the first chatbot;;
in response to determining that the portion includes the word that uniquely identifies the chatbot, processing, by the one or more processors, the portion to generate a processed portion and invoking the chatbot using the processed portion;
invoking the first chatbot using the input, wherein the input is passed to the first chatbot as a text string based on the invocation name of the first chatbot
determining, by the first chatbot, a response to the input, the response comprising an action to be performed by the first chatbot or a message to be output by the first chatbot in response to the utterance; and performing the action when the response comprises an action or outputting the response when the response comprises a message.
and in response to determining that the portion does not include the word that uniquely identifies the chatbot, performing, by the one or more processors, intent classification on the portion to identify an intent for the portion and invoking another chatbot among the plurality of chatbots based on an intent
6. The method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving, by the computer system, a second utterance; determining, by the computer system, that the second utterance does not contain any identifier assigned to a chatbot; responsive to the determining that the second utterance does not contain any identifier assigned to a chatbot, inputting the second utterance to a classifier that has been trained to determine, for a given input utterance, which chatbot in the computer system to route the given input utterance to; and providing, by the computer system, the second utterance to a second chatbot determined as a result of inputting the second utterance to the classifier.
7. The method of claim 6, wherein the classifier was trained, prior to the receiving of the second utterance, using one or more example utterances representative of a task that the second chatbot is capable of performing
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, 7-12, and 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gruber (US Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0348551) in view of Cheng (US Patent No. 10,629, 191).
Gruber teaches systems and methods for handling a multi-part voice command for a virtual assistant. Regarding claims 1, 8, and 15, Gruber teaches methods, systems and computer readable mediums [Fig 1, 2A; para 0036-0045] for receiving, by a computer system , an utterance, wherein the utterance comprises text forming at least a sentence fragment [Abstract; Fig. 8, 9, 11; para 0243; 0245];
accessing, by one or more processors, an utterance [Abstract; Fig. 8, 9, 11; para 0243; 0245];
determining, by the one or more processors, whether or not a portion of the utterance includes a word that uniquely identifies a chatbot from among a plurality of chatbots [para 0248-0251 –identified keyword domains… a weather domain might be associated with keywords or key phrases like “weather,” “temperature,” “how cold,” “how hot,” “rain,” etc. Similarly, a phone domain might be associated with keywords “call,” “dial,” etc. A calendar domain might be associated with keywords or key phrases like “meeting,” “set up a meeting,” “meet with,” “new appointment,” “schedule,” etc. A reminder domain might be associated with keywords or key phrases like “remind,” “reminder,” “set a reminder,” “remind me,” etc – where keywords for weather such as weather/temperature/how cold/hot rain are unique to a weather bot/app and keywords such as meeting/schedule/new appointment would be unique to the calendar bot/app… and Gruber's process of identifying keyword domains (weather domain, phone domain, etc) that are provided by the user, teaches determining that the utterance contains at least one word that matches at least one word of an identifier assigned to a chatbot.] based on applying an invocation rule to the portion [para 0248-0251 – parsing based on location/position…parsing based on verbs….parsing based on substring length];;
in response to determining that the portion includes the word that uniquely identifies the chatbot, processing, by the one or more processors, the portion to generate a processed portion and invoking the chatbot using the processed portion [para 0036 -- executing the task flow by invoking programs, methods, services, APIs, or the like; and generating output responses to the user in an audible (e.g., speech) and/or visual form; 0243-0251; 0281 -- processes associated with the user intents can be executed. For example, messages can be composed and sent, emails can be deleted, notifications can be dismissed, or the like. In some examples, multiple tasks or processes can be associated with individual user intents, and the various tasks or processes can be executed];
and in response to determining that the portion does not include the word that uniquely identifies the chatbot, performing, by the one or more processors, intent classification on the portion to identify an intent for the portion [para 0036-0039 – inferred user intent] and invoking a chatbot chatbots based on an intent [para 0036 -- executing the task flow by invoking programs, methods, services, APIs, or the like; and generating output responses to the user in an audible (e.g., speech) and/or visual form; 0243-0251; 0281 -- processes associated with the user intents can be executed. For example, messages can be composed and sent, emails can be deleted, notifications can be dismissed, or the like. In some examples, multiple tasks or processes can be associated with individual user intents, and the various tasks or processes can be executed].
Gruber fails to specifically teach implementing a plurality of chatbots. In a similar field of endeavor, Cheng discloses multi-service virtual assistant platform that can construct a fluid and dynamic dialogue by assembling responses to end user utterances from two kinds of agents, information agents and action agents (including custom action agents 404 – which provide for unique identifiers associated with a custom agent), where the plurality of agents are managed by a masterbot [Abstract; col. 12, line 60 to col. 13, line 12]. Cheng teaches the system provides a fluid and dynamic dialogue to be seamlessly implemented. One having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have recognized the advantages of implementing the multi-service multi-agent virtual assistant platform of Cheng, in the system of Gruber, and the results would have been predictable and resulted in an improved virtual assistant platform with a fluid and dynamic dialog, thereby improving and enhancing the user experience.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Gruber and Cheng teaches analyzing, by the one or more processors, the utterance to determine a structure of the utterance [para 0247-0251 – multiple intents are determined based on identifying multiple imperative verbs, positions or locations of keywords and verbs, and identification of conjunctions];; and determining, by the one or more processors, that the structure of the utterance corresponds to a pattern representing multiple intents [para 0247-0251 – multiple intents are determined based on identifying multiple imperative verbs, positions or locations of keywords and verbs, and identification of conjunctions].
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Gruber and Cheng teaches splitting, by the one or more processors, the utterance into multiple utterance portions, the multiple utterance portions including the portion [para 0247-0251 -- user speech 920 can be split into first candidate substring 922 beginning with the keyword “Navigate” and ending prior to the conjunction “and,” and second candidate substring 924 beginning with the keyword “send” and ending with the end of the string].
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Gruber and Cheng teaches that another portion of the utterance includes a word that uniquely identifies the another chatbot [Gruber’s multiple intents in combination with Cheng’s plurality of chatbots]; and in response to determining that the another portion includes the word that uniquely identifies the another chatbot, invoking, by the one or more processors, the another chatbot [para 0036 -- executing the task flow by invoking programs, methods, services, APIs, or the like; and generating output responses to the user in an audible (e.g., speech) and/or visual form; 0243-0251; 0281 -- processes associated with the user intents can be executed. For example, messages can be composed and sent, emails can be deleted, notifications can be dismissed, or the like. In some examples, multiple tasks or processes can be associated with individual user intents, and the various tasks or processes can be executed].
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Gruber and Cheng teaches determining, by the one or more processors, that another portion of the utterance does not include a word that uniquely identifies the another chatbot; and in response to determining that the another portion does not include the word that uniquely identifies the another chatbot, performing, by the one or more processors, intent classification on the another portion to determine which chatbot among the plurality of chatbots should be invoked [para 0036-0039 – inferred user intent] and invoking a chatbot chatbots based on an intent [para 0036 -- executing the task flow by invoking programs, methods, services, APIs, or the like; and generating output responses to the user in an audible (e.g., speech) and/or visual form; 0243-0251; 0281 -- processes associated with the user intents can be executed. For example, messages can be composed and sent, emails can be deleted, notifications can be dismissed, or the like. In some examples, multiple tasks or processes can be associated with individual user intents, and the various tasks or processes can be executed].
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Gruber and Cheng teaches in response to invoking the chatbot, using the chatbot to generate a response for the utterance and presenting the response on a display device [Gruber para 0036 -- executing the task flow by invoking programs, methods, services, APIs, or the like; and generating output responses to the user in an audible (e.g., speech) and/or visual form].
Claims 8-12 and 14-19 are rejected under similar rationale as claims 1-5 and 7.
Claims 6, 13, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gruber (US Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0348551) in view of Cheng (US Patent No. 10,629, 191) in view of Mulherkar (US Patent No. 10,365,887).
Regarding claims 6, 13, and 20, Gruber fails to teach processing the portion comprises removing a portion of the utterance associated that correspond to an invocation name of the chatbot. Mulherkar teaches the portion of the audio data corresponding to the wakeword may be removed by the local device prior to sending to a recipient device (col. 7, lines 23-25 — where a wakeword corresponds to an identifier of a chatbot or device – additionally Mulherkar’s wakeword recognition and processing teaches the utterance contains at least one word that matches at least one word of an identifier assigned to the chatbot). One having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the advantage of implementing the wakeword removal processing suggested by Mulherkar in the chatbot processing techniques of Gruber/Cheng, for the purpose of reducing the amount of information or data that is transmitted to the executing device to send only the necessary command information, to save processing time of the device and ensure the device can quickly and efficiently execute the command without needing to additionally process/detect identifier information.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANGELA A ARMSTRONG whose telephone number is (571)272-7598. The examiner can normally be reached M,T,TH,F 11:30-8:00.
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, Pierre Desir can be reached at 571-272-7799. 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.
ANGELA A. ARMSTRONG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2659
/ANGELA A ARMSTRONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2659
Prosecution Insights