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 .
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Response to Amendments and Arguments
Regarding an outstanding rejection under 35 U.S.C. §101, applicant amended independent claims 1 and 21 by adding several new limitations. Applicant provided arguments by citing “Director's Decision Ex Parte Desjardins et al” and stated that the claimed inventions are directed to a practical application and improve existing artificial intelligence bot systems (Remarks, pages 6-8).
By reviewing amended claims in light of the applicant’s arguments, the examiner agrees that the claimed inventions are no longer directed to a judicial exception. The rejection under §101 has been withdrawn.
Regarding a rejection under 35 U.S.C. §112(b), applicant amended claims to correct antecedent basis issues. The rejection under §112(b) has been withdrawn.
Regarding rejections under 35 U.S.C. §102, applicant amended independent claims 1 and 21 by adding new limitations. Applicant generally alleged (Remarks, page 8) that a previously cited Chandrasekaran reference (US PG Pub. 2019/0266999) does not teach using two AI bots.
When rejecting a previously presented dependent claim 6 (now cancelled), the examiner gave claim limitations a broadest / reasonable interpretation. The specification ([0070]) just repeats claim limitations of claim 6 and does not explain how persona is generated / used by two AI bots. The cited Chandrasekaran discloses generating personalized response by using both client-side virtual assistants and a server-side virtual assistant (Chandrasekaran, [0076-0077], Fig. 6, virtual personal assistant on the client sides #610 and virtual personal assistant server #630). Chandrasekaran meets limitations recited in a previously presented dependent claim 6.
Regarding newly added limitations in the amended independent claims 1 and 21, the examiner discovered a new reference to Brown (US PG Pub. 2015/0186154). Brown discloses customizing a team of chatbots to interact with a user (Brown, [0035-0038], Fig. 1; [0143-0144], Fig. 12). In the following rejection over prior art references, the examiner rejects the amended claims by combining the Brown reference with the previously cited Chandrasekaran reference.
The examiner further notices that original disclosure just repeats claim limitations of a previously presented claim 6. The original disclosure does not provide an adequate support for the newly added limitations. See more explanations under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-4 and 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Applicant amended independent claims 1 and 21 by adding several new limitations. The examiner has reviewed the original disclosure and could not find adequate support for the added limitations. The original disclosure (Spec. [0070]) only repeats limitations presented in a previously presented dependent claim 6 (now cancelled). The examiner could not find a support for the claimed “improve relatability between the user and the system for different users”; “streamline the improvement in relatability between the user and the system”. To expedite the prosecution, in the following rejection over prior art references, the examiner assumes the newly added limitations are related to a feature as described in the specification ([0070]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-4 and 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chandrasekaran et al. (US PG Pub. 2019/0266999, referred to as Chandrasekaran) in view of Brown et al. (US PG Pub. 2015/0186154, referred to as Brown).
Chandrasekaran discloses a personal virtual assistant (PVA) that generates personalized responses based on detected user’s mood or emotions (Chandrasekaran, [0059], [0063], Fig. 1). For example, the PVA can provide good news when a user is down and suppress bad news when the time is not right (Chandrasekaran, [0005]). The PVA also uses language, volume or tone to complement user’s moods (Chandrasekaran, [0005-0008]). Chandrasekaran further shows that the personal virtual assistant includes both client-side personal assistant (Fig. 6, #610) and server-side personal assistant (Fig. 6, #630). Both the client-sided PVA and the server-side PVA are running simultaneously.
Brown discloses customizing a team of chatbots to interact with a user (Brown, [0035-0038], Fig. 1; [0143-0144], Fig. 12). For example, Fig. 12 illustrates when a current chatbot notices that a user is watching sports, the current chatbot asks if a user wants to change to a sport virtual assistant (claimed “one of two AI bots generates persona”). If agree, the user could interact with a sport virtual assistant (claimed “the other of the two AI bots execute the persona”).
Regarding claims 1 and 21, Chandrasekaran discloses a virtual agent system and a method of customizing a persona for a virtual agent system (Chandrasekaran, [0063], [0072-0073], Fig. 5, a computer implemented personal virtual assistant system that generates personalized responses based on user’s mood / emotions), comprising:
a device processor (Chandrasekaran, [0085], Fig. 7); and
a non-transitory computer readable medium having stored thereon instructions, executable by the processor (Chandrasekaran, [0085], Fig. 7), for performing the following steps:
receiving user input including a first request for information (Chandrasekaran, [0031-0032], [0079], a virtual personal assistant (VPA) answers user’s various questions);
directing a query to at least one knowledge expert resource based on the first request for information (Chandrasekaran, [0012], [0052-0053], Fig. 5, #513, #543);
receiving a set of data from the at least one knowledge expert resource (Chandrasekaran, [0079], [0088], the VPA answers user’s questions by searching web or retrieving information from data source); and
delivering, to the user, a response to the first request for information based on the set of data (Chandrasekaran, [0030], [0045], [0062], providing personalized responses to user’s questions);
wherein delivering the response to the user is performed with a customizable persona (Chandrasekaran, [0008], [0029], Fig. 1, providing personalized responses in voice tone / speed / volume according to detected user’s mood or emotion states).
Chandrasekaran discloses a user could receive personalized responses by interacting with virtual assistants that are running simultaneously on both client devices and a server device (Chandrasekaran, [0076-0077], Fig. 6). Chandrasekaran does not explicitly describe new limitations added to the independent claims.
Brown discloses customizing a team of chatbots to interact with a user (Brown, [0035-0038], Fig. 1; [0143-0144], Fig. 12). For example, Fig. 12 illustrates that one chatbot notices that a user is watching sports and asks if a user wants to change to a sport virtual assistant (claimed “one of two AI bots generates persona”). Then, the user could interact with a sport virtual assistant (claimed “the other of the two AI bots execute the persona”). The examiner further notices that certain newly added limitations (e.g., “in order to improve …”, “thereby streamline the improvement…”) are intended use / intended results.
Both Chandrasekaran and Brown are related to a user interacting with chatbot / virtual assistants. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Chandrasekaran’s teaching with Brown’s teaching to create a team of chatbots so that different chatbots can perform different tasks. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification to enhance user’s experience with interacting with virtual assistants (Brown, [0002]).
Regarding claims 2 and 22, Chandrasekaran in view of Brown further discloses: the persona may be customized to be one or more of the following:
analytical;
soft touch ([0029], [0039-0040], relaxed or happy tone);
brief; and
detailed ([0005], [0029], presenting augmented responses with visual color and animation).
Regarding claims 3 and 23, Chandrasekaran in view of Brown further discloses: the type of persona may be selectable by a user (Chandrasekaran, [0006], user selects language tone or volume).
Regarding claims 4 and 24, Chandrasekaran in view of Brown further discloses: the type of persona is auto-selected based on the user input (Chandrasekaran, [0047-0048], [0066], generating personalized responses based on detected user’s mood / emotion from user inputs) OR user information including at least one of user age, user gender, and user occupation (Chandrasekaran, [0007], based on user’s location or time).
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jialong He, whose telephone number is (571) 270-5359. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday, 8:00AM – 4:30PM, EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Pierre Desir can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JIALONG HE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2659
Prosecution Insights