DETAILED ACTION
This action is in reply to the original application filed on 07/22/2024.
Claim 1 is rejected.
Claim 1 is currently pending and have been examined.
Priority
The current Application claims priority from Provisional Application 63/515,024, filed 07/21/2023. Therefore, the instant claims receive the effective filing date of 07/21/2023.
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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
-Claim 1 reads “completing the process of fusing … with the dialogue history in order to provide the final response” but should likely read “completing a process of fusing … with dialogue history in order to provide a final response”
-Claim 1 further reads “wherein the using, finding, and completing to connect the Alexa socialbot with the Amazon Store” but should likely read “wherein the using, the finding, and the completing are to connect an Alexa® socialbot with an Amazon® Store”
The use of the terms “Alexa” and “Amazon,” which are trade names or marks used in commerce, have been noted in this application. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “finding relevant content for any product’s aspect, such as price, reviews, and features.” The phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the price, reviews, and features are the included aspects of the product. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For the purpose of this examination, Examiner interprets “finding relevant content for any product’s aspect, such as price, reviews, and features” as “finding relevant content for one or more aspect of a product, the one or more aspect of the product including one or more of: price, reviews, and features.”
Claim 1 further recites “the retrieved knowledge.” It is unclear to one of ordinary skill in the art whether “the retrieved knowledge” is referring to the previously introduced “external and factual knowledge” or the previously introduced “relevant content.” For the purpose of this examination, Examiner interprets “the retrieved knowledge” as “ the relevant content.”
Claim 1 further recites “opening novel functions like better recommendations, conversational shopping guidance, automatic seeking of new product types, and personalization.” The phrase “like” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the function of better recommendations, conversational shopping guidance, automatic seeking of new product types, and personalization are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For the purpose of this examination, Examiner interprets “opening novel functions like better recommendations, conversational shopping guidance, automatic seeking of new product types, and personalization” as “opening novel functions comprising one or more of: better recommendations, conversational shopping guidance, automatic seeking of new product types, and personalization.”
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Under Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test for Products and Processes, the claims must be directed to one of the four statutory categories (see MPEP 2106.03). All the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories (YES).
Under Step 2A of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test, it is determined whether the claims are directed to a judicially recognized exception (see MPEP 2106.04). Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry.
Under Prong 1, it is determined whether the claim recites a judicial exception (YES). Taking Claim 1 as representative, the claim recites limitations that fall within the certain methods of organizing human activity groupings of abstract ideas, including:
-using, via a model, search engines to look for external and factual knowledge across the internet;
-finding relevant content for any product’s aspect, such as price, reviews, and features; and
-completing the process of fusing the retrieved knowledge with the dialogue history in order to provide the final response;
-wherein the using, finding, and completing to connect the Alexa socialbot with the Amazon Store, opening novel functions like better recommendations, conversational shopping guidance, automatic seeking of new product types, and personalization.
The above limitations recite the concept of searching for and providing relevant product information. The above limitations fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” groupings of abstract ideas, enumerated in MPEP 2106.04(a).
Certain methods of organizing human activity include:
fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, and mitigating risk)
commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; and business relations)
managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)
The limitations of finding relevant content for any product’s aspect, such as price, reviews, and features; and completing the process of fusing the retrieved knowledge with the dialogue history in order to provide the final response are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover a commercial interaction. For example, “finding” and “completing” in the context of this claim encompass advertising, and marketing or sales activities.
Similarly, the limitations of using, via a model, search engines to look for external and factual knowledge across the internet; and wherein the using, finding, and completing to connect the Alexa socialbot with the Amazon Store, opening novel functions like better recommendations, conversational shopping guidance, automatic seeking of new product types, and personalization are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover a commercial interaction. That is, other than reciting that search engines are used to look for external and factual knowledge, that the looking is across the internet, and that the connecting with the Amazon Store is via the Alexa socialbot, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed by people. For example, but for the “search engines,” “the internet,” and “the Alexa socialbot” language, “using” and “connect” in the context of this claim encompasses advertising, and marketing or sales activities.
Under Prong 2, it is determined whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (NO).
-using, via a model, search engines to look for external and factual knowledge across the internet;
-finding relevant content for any product’s aspect, such as price, reviews, and features; and
-completing the process of fusing the retrieved knowledge with the dialogue history in order to provide the final response;
-wherein the using, finding, and completing to connect the Alexa socialbot with the Amazon Store, opening novel functions like better recommendations, conversational shopping guidance, automatic seeking of new product types, and personalization.
These limitations are not indicative of integration into a practical application because:
The additional elements of claim 1 are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as generic computing hardware) such that they amount to nothing more than mere instructions to implement or apply the abstract idea on a generic computing hardware (or, merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea) as supported by paragraph [0042] of Applicant’s specification – “The processor 304 can be any custom made or commercially available processor, a central processor unit (CPU), an auxiliary processor among several processors associated with the computer controller 300, a semiconductor based microprocessor (in the form of a microchip or chip set), a macroprocessor, or generally any device for executing software instructions.” Specifically, the additional elements of search engines, the internet, and the Alexa socialbot are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e. as a generic processor performing the generic computer functions of using a model to look for data, finding data, fusing data [i.e. collecting data], and connecting) such that they amount do no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional 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 claim is directed to an abstract idea. Further, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (such as computers or computing networks). Employing well-known computer functions to execute an abstract idea, even when limiting the use of the idea to one particular environment, does not integrate the exception into a practical application.
Additionally, the additional elements are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claim fails to i) reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, ii) apply the judicial exception with, or use the judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, iii) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or iv) apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Accordingly, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Under Step 2B, it is determined whether the claims recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims of the present application do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (NO).
In the case of claim 1, taken individually or as a whole, the additional elements of claim 9 do not provide an inventive concept. As discussed above under step 2A (prong 2) with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements used to perform the claimed functions amount to no more than a general link to a technological environment.
Even considered as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements do not add anything significantly more than when considered individually.
Therefore, claim 1 does not qualify as eligible subject matter.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bright et al. (US 2019/0012714 A1), hereinafter Bright, in view of Baligar et al. (US 10,997,963 B1), hereinafter Baligar.
Regarding claim 1, Bright discloses a deep learning method with improved search and dialogue properties connecting, comprising:
-using, via a model, search engines to look for external and factual knowledge across the internet (Bright, see at least: “A networked system 102, in the example forms of a network-based marketplace or payment system, provides server-side functionality via a network 104 (e.g., the Internet or a wide area network (WAN)) [i.e. across the internet] to one or more client devices 110. FIG. 1 illustrates, for example, a web client 112 (e.g., a browser, such as the Internet Explorer® browser [i.e. using search engines] developed by Microsoft® Corporation of Redmond, Wash. State), a client application 114, and a programmatic client 116 executing on the client device 110” [0040] and “the search component 218 may use n-gram, entity, and semantic vector-based queries to product matching. Deep-learned semantic vectors give the ability to match products to non-text inputs directly. Multi-leveled relevance filtration may use BM25, predicted query leaf category+product leaf category, semantic vector similarity between query and product, and other models to pick the top candidate products [i.e. via a model] for the final re-ranking algorithm” [0091] and “the networked system 102 is a network-based marketplace that responds to requests for product listings, publishes publications comprising item listings of products available on the network-based marketplace [i.e. to look for external and factual knowledge], and manages payments for marketplace transactions. One or more users 106 may be a person, a machine, or other means of interacting with the client device 110. In embodiments” [0041] and “the third-party application 132, utilizing information retrieved from the networked system 102, supports one or more features or functions on a website hosted by a third party. The third-party website, for example, provides one or more promotional, marketplace [i.e. external knowledge], or payment functions that are supported by the relevant applications of the networked system 102” [0046]);
-finding relevant content for any product’s aspect, such as price, reviews, and features (Bright, see at least: “The natural-language text input can thus be transformed into a structured query using rich information from additional knowledge to enrich the query even further. This information is then passed on to the dialogue manager 204 through the orchestrator 220 for further actions with the user or with the other components in the overall system. The structured and enriched query is also consumed by the search component 218 for improved matching [i.e. finding relevant content]” [0052] and “The AIF 144 knows about user details 312, such as user preferences, desired price ranges, sizes, affinities, etc. [i.e. for any product’s aspect, such as price, reviews, and features]” [0061] and “the AIF 144 may process input queries such as: “Hey!Can you help me find a pair of light pink shoes for my girlfriend please? With heels. Up to $200. Thanks;” “I recently searched for a men's leather jacket with a classic James Dean look. Think almost Harrison Ford's in the new Star Wars movie. However, I'm looking for quality in a price range of $200-300 [i.e. for any product’s aspect, such as price, reviews, and features]. Might not be possible, but I wanted to see!”” [0063]); and
-completing the process of fusing the retrieved knowledge with the dialogue history in order to provide the final response (Bright, see at least: “The NLU component 206 determines the object, the aspects associated with the object, how to create the search interface input, and how to generate the response. For example, the AIF 144 may ask questions to the user to clarify what the user is looking for [i.e. completing the process of fusing the retrieved knowledge with the dialogue history]. This means that the AIF 144 not only generates results [i.e. in order to provide the final response], but also may create a series of interactive operations to get to the optimal, or close to optimal, results 222” [0054] and “The dialogue manager 204 is the component that analyzes the query of a user to extract meaning, and determines if there is a question that needs to be asked in order to refine the query, before sending the query to the search component 218. The dialogue manager 204 uses the current communication in the context of the previous communication [i.e. with the dialogue history] between the user and the AIF 144. The questions are automatically generated dependent on the combination of the accumulated knowledge (e.g., provided by a knowledge graph) and what the search component 218 can extract out of the inventory [i.e. fusing the retrieved knowledge]” [0056] and “the AIF 144 performs proactive data extraction 310 from multiple sources, such as social networks, email, calendar, news, market trends, etc. The AIF 144 knows about user details 312, such as user preferences, desired price ranges, sizes, affinities, etc.” [0061] Examiner notes that while are is applied “in order to provide the final response” is an intended result and therefore holds little patentable weight);
-wherein the using, finding, and completing to connect the socialbot with the Store, opening novel functions like better recommendations, conversational shopping guidance, automatic seeking of new product types, and personalization (Bright, see at least: “the AIF 144 performs proactive data extraction 310 from multiple sources, such as social networks, email, calendar, news, market trends, etc. The AIF 144 knows about user details 312, such as user preferences, desired price ranges, sizes, affinities, etc. The AIF 144 facilitates a plurality of services within the service network, such as product search, personalization, recommendations, checkout features, etc. Output 308 may include recommendations, results [i.e. wherein the using, finding, and completing]” [0061] and “the intelligent personal assistant system of FIG. 2 is shown to include a front-end component 502 (FE) by which the intelligent personal assistant system 142 communicates (e.g., over the network 104) with other systems within the network architecture 100. The front-end component 502 can communicate with the fabric of existing messaging systems. As used herein, the term “messaging fabric” refers to a collection of APIs and services that can power third-party platforms such as Facebook messenger, Microsoft Cortana, and other “bots.” In one example, a messaging fabric can support an online commerce ecosystem that allows users to interact with commercial intent [i.e. to connect the socialbot with the Store]” [0079] and “An application programming interface (API) server 120 and a web server 122 are coupled to, and provide programmatic and web interfaces respectively to, one or more application servers 140. The application server 140 hosts an intelligent personal assistant system 142 [i.e. to connect the socialbot with the Store]” [0044] and “Embodiments present a personal shopping assistant, also referred to as an intelligent assistant, that supports a two-way communication with the shopper to build context and understand the intent of the shopper, enabling delivery of better, personalized shopping results [i.e. opening novel functions like better recommendations, conversational shopping guidance, automatic seeking of new product types, and personalization]” [0050]).
Bright does not explicitly disclose the socialbot being an Alexa socialbot and the store being an Amazon Store.
Baligar, however, teaches utilizing a voice assistant (i.e. abstract), including the known technique of connecting the Alexa socialbot with the Amazon Store (Baligar, see at least: “Examples of voice assistant systems include Alexa® [i.e. the Alexa socialbot] provided by Amazon.com® [i.e. the Amazon Store] of Seattle, Wash.” Col. 2 Ln. 7-9 and “FIG. 1 is a schematic diagram of an illustrative computing environment 100 that includes a voice assistant service 102 that augments information provided by a content provider 104 [i.e. connect the Alexa socialbot with the Amazon Store]. The environment may include a user device 106 operated by a user 108. The user device 106 may exchange information from the content provider 104. As an example, the user device 104 may execute a browser application that enables the user 108 to interact with content provided by the content provider 104. For example, the content provider 104 may host an electronic marketplace [i.e. the Amazon Store] that enables the user 108 to consume products and/or services, referred to collectively herein as “items”” Col. 3 Ln. 37-48). This known technique is applicable to the method of Bright as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to utilizing a voice assistant.
It would have been recognized that applying the known technique of connecting the Alexa socialbot with the Amazon Store, as taught by Baligar, to the teachings of Bright would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such references into similar methods. Further, adding the modification of connecting the Alexa socialbot with the Amazon Store, as taught by Baligar, into the method of Bright would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved method that would provide accurate, intuitive, and relatively quick interactions in order to instruct the computing devices to perform desired functions (Baligar, Col. 1 Ln. 19-21).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
-Trainor et al. (US 2021/0272187 A1) teaches receiving a voice request associated with a user interaction with a website.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARIELLE E WEINER whose telephone number is (571)272-9007. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00.
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, Maria-Teresa (Marissa) Thein can be reached at 571-272-6764. 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.
/ARIELLE E WEINER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3689