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 .
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, 8 and 16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,057,113. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are obvious variant of each other and they achieve the same function.
Instant application 18/766,466
Claim 8 (similarly claims 1 and 16): A system comprising:
US Patent 12,057,113
Claim 1: A method
one or more processors to perform operations comprising:
of processing input comprising:
receiving one or more input queries to a dialog management system;
receiving an input query to an open domain query system;
determining, based on a content of the one or more input queries, a domain tag corresponding to the one or more input queries;
associating, using a natural language understanding model, the input query with one or more closed domain query systems;
identifying, based at least on the domain tag, a closed domain dialog system from a plurality of closed domain dialog systems;
associating, using a natural language understanding model, the input query with one or more closed domain query systems;
sending data corresponding to the one or more input queries to the closed domain dialog system;
sending at least a portion of the input query to the one or more closed domain query systems;
receiving responsive data from the closed domain dialog system in response to the one or more input queries; and
receiving one or more responses from the one or more closed domain query systems; and
generating, using the dialog management system, a response based at least on the responsive data.
processing, using the open domain query system, the one or more responses from the one or more closed domain query systems to obtain a response to the input query.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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) 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee (US 20050288935).
With respect to claim 8 (similarly claims 1 and 16), Lee teaches a system (e.g. the integrated dialogue system of Figs 3-4 and/or 6-7 [0043] and [0066]) comprising:
one or more processors to perform operations (e.g. [0044] inherently suggest one or more processors to perform operations such as processing the received input data) comprising:
receiving one or more input queries to a dialog management system (e.g. receiving voice input or text input to an integrated dialogue system of Figs 3 and 6 [0045], [0067]);
determining, based on a content of the one or more input queries, a domain tag corresponding to the one or more input queries (e.g. determining, based on "I want to book an airline ticket to New York City on July 4 and a hotel room", a domain 306b/306c tag corresponding to "I want to book an airline ticket to New York City on July 4 and a hotel room" [0058]-[0060]);
identifying, based at least on the domain tag, a closed domain dialog system from a plurality of closed domain dialog systems (e.g. identifying, based on domain tag 306b/c, a closed domain 306c from a plurality of closed domain dialog systems 306a-c, Fig 3 [0045]-[0046], [0058]-[0060]);
sending data corresponding to the one or more input queries to the closed domain dialog system (e.g. sending data corresponding “book a hotel room” to the closed domain dialog system 306c [0045]-[0046];
receiving responsive data from the closed domain dialog system in response to the one or more input queries (e.g. the domain 306c transmits the dialogue result related to the hotel information to the domain 306b via the bridge 304 [0046]); and
generating, using the dialog management system, a response based at least on the responsive data (e.g. a combination of the hotel information and the airline booking dialogue result is sent out to the user [0046]).
With respect to claim 9, Lee teaches the system of claim 8, wherein the one or more operations further comprises updating a dialog state by the dialog management system based at least on the response to the one or more input queries (e.g. updating a dialogue state by the integrated dialogue system based on the response to "I want to book an airline ticket to New York City on July 4” [0045]-[0046], [0058]-[0060]).
With respect to claim 10, Lee teaches the system of claim 9, wherein the dialog state comprises at least one of a history, a conversation context (e.g. the dialogue state comprises a conversation context i.e. booking an airline ticket [0045]-[0046], [0058]-[0060]), an estimate of a user’s intent, or a status of a user’s conversation with a digital assistant application.
N.B: Claim 10 requires at least one of a history, a conversation context, an estimate of a user’s intent, or a status of a user’s conversation with a digital assistant application. Examiner selected a conversation context.
With respect to claim 11 (similarly claims 2 and 18), Lee teaches the system of claim 8, wherein the determining the domain tag corresponding to the closed domain dialog system comprises performing natural language processing on at least a portion of the data corresponding to the one or more input queries (e.g. voice recognition module 502 Fig 5 performs natural language processing on at least a portion of the data corresponding to the one or more input queries, i.e. transforming the voice input data into an recognized voice data [0031], [0057]-[0058]).
With respect to claim 12 (similarly claims 4 and 19), Lee teaches the system of claim 8, wherein the data corresponding to the one or more input queries includes at least one of: text data, image data, audio data, or video data (e.g. the data corresponding to the one or more input queries includes at least one of: text data, audio/voice data see Fig 3-5).
With respect to claim 13, Lee teaches the system of claim 8, wherein the dialog management system comprises an interface (e.g. bridge 304 Fig 3 and/or bridge 608 Fig 6) corresponding to the closed domain dialog system, and at least one of sending data corresponding to the one or more input queries or receiving responsive data in response to the one or more input queries is performed using the interface (e.g. at least one of sending data corresponding to the one or more input queries or receiving responsive data in response to the one or more input queries of [0045]-[0046] is performed using the interface 304 Fig 3 and/or 608 Fig 6).
With respect to claim 14, Lee teaches the system of claim 13, wherein the interface comprises an application plug-in (e.g. the bridge 304/608 comprises an application plug-in, Fig 3 and/or 6).
With respect to claim 15 (similarly claim 6), Lee teaches the system of claim 8, wherein the response includes at least one of: one or more displays of text corresponding to the responsive data; or one or more presentations of audio corresponding to audio data generated based at least on the responsive data using one or more text-to-speech (TTS) algorithms (e.g. a combination of the hotel information and the airline booking dialogue result is sent out to the user [0046] includes one or more presentations of audio corresponding to audio data generated based at least on the responsive data using one or more text-to-speech (TTS) algorithms i.e. the text-to-speech synthesizer 406 receives and transforms the dialogue results into a speech dialogue which is sent to the user in voice form via the voice output [0054]).
With respect to claim 3, Lee teaches the one or more processing units of claim 1, wherein at least one of the domain tag or the one or more input queries are provided to a dialog manager (e.g. the dialogue parameter information i.e. one of the domain tag or the one or more input queries is sent to bridge 304 Fig 3 S312 [0046]), wherein the dialog manager directs the one or more input queries to the closed domain dialog system (e.g. Via operation 314, the bridge 304 transmits the input data, the dialogue result, the dialogue parameter information and the dialogue history information to the second domain, i.e. domain 306c [0046]).
With respect to claim 5 (similarly claim 20), Lee teaches the one or more processing units of claim 1, wherein the sending the data corresponding to the one or more input queries to the closed domain dialog system comprises sending the data using one or more application plug-ins or one or more application programming interfaces (APIs) associated with the closed domain dialog system (e.g. sending the input data to domain 306c of [0046] comprises sending the data using one or more application plug-ins or one or more application programming interfaces (APIs) associated with the closed domain dialog system 306c, see Fig 4 [0053]).
With respect to claim 7, Lee teaches the one or more processing units of claim 1, wherein the one or more processing units is comprised in at least one of: a system of an autonomous or semi-autonomous machine; a system implemented using an edge device; a system implemented using a robot; a system for performing deep learning operations; a system incorporating one or more virtual machines (VMs); a system implemented at least partially in a data center; or a system implemented at least partially using cloud computing resources (e.g. the one or more processing units is comprised in at least one of a system implemented at least partially in a data center, Figs 3-8).
N.B: Claim 7 requires at least one of a system of an autonomous or semi-autonomous machine; a system implemented using an edge device; a system implemented using a robot; a system for performing deep learning operations; a system incorporating one or more virtual machines (VMs); a system implemented at least partially in a data center; or a system implemented at least partially using cloud computing resources. Examiner selected a system implemented at least partially in a data center.
With respect to claim 17, Lee teaches the method of claim 16, wherein the processing the one or more requests to the open domain dialog system comprises determining a domain tag corresponding to the closed domain dialog system from the plurality of closed domain dialog systems (e.g. determining, based on "I want to book an airline ticket to New York City on July 4 and a hotel room", a domain 306b/306c tag corresponding to the closed domain dialog system from the plurality of closed domain dialog systems [0045]-[0046], [0058]-[0060]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IBRAHIM SIDDO whose telephone number is (571)272-4508. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-5:30PM.
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, Akwasi Sarpong can be reached at 5712703438. 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.
/IBRAHIM SIDDO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2681