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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/19/2026 has been entered.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 02/19/2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of U.S. PAT No. 12,047,343 has been reviewed and is NOT accepted. The one applicant name is missing on the TD form. To resolve disapproval please submit the applicant names in its entirety exactly as it is on the ADS.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/19/2026 was filed after the mailing date of the Ex Parte Quayle Action on 11/19/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments/Remarks
Applicant's arguments/remarks, filed 02/19/2026, see 4th & 5th ¶s of page 7, with respect to Double Patenting Rejection of claims 1-13 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The terminal disclaimer filed 02/19/2026 has been reviewed and is NOT accepted because an applicant name is missing on the TD form. To resolve disapproval please submit the applicant names in its entirety exactly as it is on the ADS.
In response to applicant’s arguments/remarks, see last ¶ of page 7, with respect to allowability of claims 2-7, 9-13 and 22-24 if a Terminal Disclaimer over U.S. Patent No. 12,047,343 is filed, the examiner would like to note that the terminal disclaimer is not accepted and thus the double patenting rejection is maintained. Furthermore, an applicable prior art reference has been identified and a new ground of rejection has been made to claims 2-7 and 9-11. See office action below.
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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 2-7, 9-13 and 22-24 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over U.S. Patents No. 12047343, 11677706 and 12107813. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the Claims 1- 20 of U.S. Patent No. 12047343 describe all the limitations of Claims 2-7, 9-13 and 22-24 of the instant application, thus Claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12047343 anticipate the claims 2-7, 9-13 and 22-24 of the instant application.
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) 2-7 and 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chandra et al. (US PG PUB 20190268288), hereinafter "Chandra", in views of Shinn et al. (US PG PUB 20190065625), hereinafter "Shinn", further in views of Chu et al. (US PG PUB 20100036671), hereinafter "Chu".
Regarding Claim 2, Chandra discloses:
A computer system (i.e. server system) (Fig. 1 and ¶ 0014) comprising:
one or more processing units and memory coupled to the one or more processing units, the memory storing at least one program for execution by the one or more processing units (i.e. processor 610 coupled to memory 630 storing instructions executable by the processor 610) (Fig. 6 and ¶ 0092 - 0093), the at least one program comprising instructions for:
receiving a request from a user to identify one or more compliance standard benefits (i.e. the system may receive, from a user, request to identify sick leave or vacation leave [i.e. one or more compliance standard]) (Fig. 4 and ¶ 0031);
responsive to the request, interacting with the user via a node-based conversation using an interface module configured to traverse nodes of a node graph (i.e. in response to the user’s request for the leave, the system may interact with the user via conversation flow [i.e. a node-based conversation] using a chatbot [i.e. an interface module] that transverse through condition nodes 404/406 and message nodes 412 of a node graph) (Fig. 4, ¶ 0031 and ¶ 0034),
the node graph comprising a plurality of interconnected nodes (i.e. the node graph includes interconnected condition nodes and message nodes) (¶ 0031);
while interacting with the user, progressing from an initial node in a first subset of the plurality of interconnected nodes to a second subset of the plurality of interconnected nodes using the interface module by providing one or more compliance questions to the user and traversing between nodes in accordance with one or more corresponding answers from the user (i.e. during the conversation with the user [i.e. while interacting with the user], the chatbot [i.e. the interface module] may progress from “greeting message node” [i.e. an initial node] in a message nodes [i.e. a first subset of the plurality of interconnected nodes] to “leave type node”, “start date node”, etc. [i.e. a second subset of the plurality of interconnected nodes] by asking questions, e.g. “What type of leave would you like to request”, “start date”, “end date”, etc. [i.e. providing compliance questions to the user], and may transvers from the current node, e.g. “leave type node” to the next node, e.g. “start data node”, [i.e. traversing between nodes] based on the user’s answer for the leave type [i.e. in accordance with corresponding answers from the user]) (Fig. 4, ¶ 0031and ¶ 0034),
in accordance with progressing the user to a particular node of the second subset of the plurality of interconnected nodes, determining that the user meets a first set of requirements for a first distinct compliance standard, the first distinct compliance standard corresponding to the particular node (i.e. in accordance with progressing the user to a “Approve Request node” [i.e. a particular node of the second subset of the plurality of interconnected nodes], the system may determine that the user has provided the required inputs, e.g. “leave type”, “start date”, “end date”, etc., and the user has enough leave balance [i.e. the user meets a first plurality of requirements] in order to get approval for the leave request [i.e. a first distinct compliance standard] which is indicated by [i.e. corresponding to] reaching to “Approve Request” 420 node” [i.e. the particular node]) (Fig. 4, ¶ 0031, ¶ 0034 – 0036 and ¶ 0040); and
providing information regarding a first benefit available to the user, the first benefit corresponding to the first distinct compliance standard (i.e. the system may provide the message [i.e. information] indicating that the user’s request for leave [i.e. a first benefit] is approved [i.e. available to the user], the leave approval [i.e. the first benefit] is based on “Approve Request” 420 node” which indicates the approval for the leave request [i.e. a first distinct compliance standard]) (Fig. 4, ¶ 0031, ¶ 0034 – 0036 and ¶ 0040).
However, Chandra does not explicitly disclose:
On the other hand, in the same field of endeavor, Shinn teaches:
responsive to the request, retrieving information from a prior text-based conversation of the user (i.e. responsive to a query sentence input [i.e. the request], the method/system may retrieve relevant data nodes [i.e. information] from knowledge data store including user's conversation history with the autonomous system [i.e. a prior text-based conversation of the user]) (Fig. 4, ¶ 0079, ¶ 0081 – 0083 and ¶ 0250) and
interacting with the user via a node-based conversation using an interface module configured to traverse nodes of a node graph (i.e. the method/system may receive user inputs and generate responses [i.e. interacting with the user] based on a goal hierarchy tree [i.e. via a node-based conversation] using reasoner and planner modules [i.e. an interface module] configured to generate the responses by going through nodes of the hierarchy tree [i.e. a node graph]) (Fig. 3, ¶ 0073 – 0075 and ¶ 0085),
the node graph comprising a plurality of interconnected nodes (i.e. the hierarch tree [i.e. the node graph] includes a plurality of nodes) (¶ 0073 – 0075 and ¶ 0085).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method/device/computer-readable-medium of Chandra to include the feature for responsive to the request, retrieving information from a prior text-based conversation of the user and interacting with the user via a node-based conversation using an interface module configured to traverse nodes of a node graph, the node graph comprising a plurality of interconnected nodes as taught by Shinn so that previous conversations with the user may be used as supporting knowledge in generating the responses to the user inputs (Fig. 4, ¶ 0079, ¶ 0081 – 0083 and ¶ 0250).
However, the combination of Chandra and Shinn does not explicitly disclose
wherein the first subset of the plurality of interconnected nodes corresponds to one or more respective compliance questions, and wherein the second subset of the plurality of interconnected nodes corresponds to a plurality of distinct compliance standards.
On the other hand, in the same field of endeavor, Chu teaches:
wherein the first subset of the plurality of interconnected nodes corresponds to one or more respective compliance questions (i.e. a plurality of conditional nodes 535/540/545 [i.e. the first subset of the plurality of interconnected nodes] include questions, e.g. “Employee Employed 12 Months Accumulated For Company”, “Employee meets 1250 Hours Requirement”, “Is there a Standing Doctor’s Documentation For FMLA Leave Request” [i.e. respective compliance questions]) (Fig. 5B and ¶ 0048 - 0050), and
wherein the second subset of the plurality of interconnected nodes corresponds to a plurality of distinct compliance standards (i.e. “Approve” node, “Tentatively Approve pending Doctor’s authorization”, etc. [i.e. the second subset of the plurality of interconnected nodes] corresponds to leave approval, Tentative approval, etc. [i.e. a plurality of distinct compliance standards]) (Fig. 5 and ¶ 0048).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method/device/computer-readable-medium of Chandra and Shinn to include the feature wherein the first subset of the plurality of interconnected nodes corresponds to one or more respective compliance questions, and wherein the second subset of the plurality of interconnected nodes corresponds to a plurality of distinct compliance standards as taught by Chu so that the benefits available to the user may be provided to the user based on the user meeting a plurality of requirements, e.g. “Employee Employed 12 Months Accumulated For Company”, “Employee meets 1250 Hours Requirement”, etc. (Fig. 5B and ¶ 0048 - 0050).
Regarding Claim 3, Chandra, Shinn and Chu disclose, in particular Chandra teaches:
wherein the first distinct compliance standard is specific to a respective government institution or service, a respective entity that employs the respective user, or both (i.e. conversation flow comprising the compliance condition/standard at conditional nodes 404-410 [i.e. the compliance standard] is defined by the organization [i.e. a respective entity] that employs the employee/user [i.e. the respective subject]) (¶ 0023 and ¶ 0031).
Regarding Claim 4, Chandra, Shinn and Chu disclose, in particular Chandra teaches:
wherein each node in the second subset of the plurality of interconnected nodes is associated with at least two nodes in the first subset of the plurality of interconnected nodes (i.e. Ask for leave type node 402 [i.e. each node in the second subset of the plurality of interconnected nodes] is associated with condition node 404 and condition node 406 [i.e. at least two nodes in the first subset of the plurality of interconnected nodes]) (Fig. 4 and ¶ 0031).
Regarding Claim 5, Chandra, Shinn and Chu disclose, in particular Chandra teaches:
wherein the node graph is a non-binary node graph (i.e. the node graph is text based message node graph [i.e. a non-binary node graph]) (¶ 0031).
Regarding Claim 6, Chandra, Shinn and Chu disclose, in particular Chandra teaches:
wherein the at least one program further comprises instructions for identifying a respective node in the first subset of the plurality of interconnected nodes as the initial node based on information from the user (i.e. based on the message [i.e. the using (C)], the system may identify a node [i.e. a respective node] for asking missing parameter(s); For example, if Leave type is missing, the system may identify the node 412 [i.e. a respective node] in the group of nodes 412-416 [i.e. the first subset of nodes] as an initial node) (Fig. 3 and ¶ 0031 – 0034).
Regarding Claim 7, Chandra, Shinn and Chu disclose, in particular Chandra teaches:
wherein the information from the user comprises one or more of: a name of the user, a proposed absence start date of the user, a proposed absence end date of the user, a reason for a proposed absence of the user, and an absence status category of the proposed absence of the user (i.e. the user is required to answer leave type [i.e. an absence status category of the proposed absence of the user] and the start and end dates of the leave request [i.e. a proposed absence end date of the user]) (¶ 0031 and ¶ 0034).
Regarding Claim 9, Chandra, Shinn and Chu disclose, in particular Chandra teaches:
wherein the interface module comprises an audio and voice response module (i.e. the system may accept voice input of the user) (¶ 0097).
Regarding Claim 10, Chandra, Shinn and Chu disclose, in particular Chandra teaches:
wherein progressing the user from the initial node in the first subset of the plurality of interconnected nodes to the second subset of the plurality of interconnected nodes comprises using one or more computational models (i.e. a plurality of nodes for if-else conditions and API calls [i.e. one or more computational models] are used to progress from one node to next) (¶ 0009 – 0010).
Regarding Claim 11, Chandra, Shinn and Chu disclose, in particular Chandra teaches:
wherein the one or more computational models comprises at least one of: a support vector machine model, a logistic regression model, a naive Bayes model, a decision tree model, a nearest neighbor model, and a neural network model (i.e. a plurality of nodes for if-else conditions [i.e. decision tree model] is used to progress from one node to next) (¶ 0009 – 0010).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14, 15, 17, 18, 20 and 21 are allowed.
Claims 12 allowable if (i) applicant file terminal disclaimer for overcoming the double patenting rejection described above and (ii) rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SOE MIN HLAING whose telephone number is (303)297-4282. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM - 5PM.
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 on 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.
/Soe Hlaing/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2451
Prosecution Insights