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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 6-9 and 15-18 are 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.
Claims 6 and 15 recite the functional card, which is indefinite as previously, only a plurality of functional cards and a first functional card have been recited. For the purpose of examination, the claims will be interpreted as if it had read wherein the plurality of functional cards comprise …
Claims 8 and 17 recite the target generative model which meets a similarity condition. There is a lack of proper antecedent basis for this limitation. For the purpose of examination, the claim limitation will be interpreted as if it had read a target generative model …
Claims 9 and 18 recite a third to-be-processed question without reciting any second to-be-processed question, which renders the scope indefinite as it is unclear whether two or three to-be-processed questions are required by the claim scope. For the purpose of examination, the claim limitation will be interpreted as if only two to-be-processed questions are required.
Dependent claims are rejected for inheriting the indefiniteness of a parent claim.
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.
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.
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.
Claims 1-3, 10-12, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Glaese, “Improving alignment of dialogue agents via targeted human judgements,” in view of view of Noh, US PG Pub 2022/0027574.
Regarding Claim 1, Glaese teaches a method for question-answer processing (Glaese, pg. 1, Fig. 1, shows a method of question-answer processing), comprising: receiving a content of a first to-be-processed question that is inputted (Glaese, pg. 6, Fig. 4, “Here we show how the textual representation of a dialogue processed by the language model is rendered for raters” displays a first-to-be-processed question that was inputted to the system); acquiring at least two answer results of the content of the first-to-be-processed question, wherein the at least two first answer results are generated based on at least two target generative content models matches with the content of the first to-be-processed question respectively, the at least two target generative models are capable of answering the first to-be-processed question … and displaying the first at least two answers (Glaese, pg. 7, 3rd paragraph, “human raters are given an incomplete dialogue and multiple possible statements to continue the dialog, each corresponding to a different sample or model” also see pg. 5, Fig. 3 & pg. 6, Fig. 4 & pg. 27, 2nd-to-last paragraph, “generative models”).
Glaese does not teach that the different dialogue models may be based on different occupational persona, i.e. that generative models of different types are trained based on different occupational scenes, but Noh teaches this limitation (Noh, [0013], “training a style transfer method according to a persona” & [0048], “the ‘persona’ may be a character which reflects people’s common linguistic characteristics in relation to at least one of … an occupation”). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to allow people to indicate preference for a different persona, including occupation, as does Noh, in the invention of Glaese. The motivation to do so is that different users may prefer to have conversations with chatbots or generative language models reflecting different personas.
Regarding Claim 2, the Glaese/Noh combination of Claim 1 teaches the method according to Claim 1 (and thus the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated). Glaese does not teach, but Noh teaches displaying label identifiers respectively representing the at least two target generative models, wherein for each label identifier of the label identifiers, a display card corresponding to the label identifier is used for displaying a first answer result generated by a target generative model corresponding to the label identifier (Noh, Fig. 9); and in response to a switching operation for a first label identifier among the label identifiers, switching to display a first answer result generated by a target generative model corresponding to the first label identifier (Noh, [0160], “based on user input for selecting at least one person in the information indicating the one or more personas, the person module may determine the at least one selected persona as at least one persona for generating the second response sentence”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to identify which output comes from which model, as does Noh, in the Glaese/Noh combination. The motivation to do so is so that the user has more information in selecting a persona model of their preference.
Regarding Claim 3, the Glaese/Noh combination of Claim 1 teaches the method according to Claim 1 (and thus the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated). Glaese does not teach, but Noh teaches for a first answer result among the at least two first answer results, displaying question prompt information associated with the first answer result (Noh, Fig. 9, the final text entry box at the bottom of the figure, which corresponds to [0215]); in response to a selection operation for the question prompt information, acquitting an adjusted first answer result, and displaying the adjusted first answer result, wherein the adjusted first answer result is obtained by a target generative model corresponding to the first answer result adjusting the first answer result according to the question prompt information selected (Noh, [0215-0216], “the processor 260 may input an additional (or new) sentence based on a user input … if at least part of the one or more selected sentences is corrected or an additional sentence is inputted, the processor 260 may store the modified or inputted sentence, and use it to train the problem transfer model”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to allow a user to improve or correct an answer provided by a generative model, as does Noh, in the Glaese/Noh combination. The motivation to do so is to allow improved training of the personas of the models.
Claims 10-12 recite an electronic device comprising: at least one processor and at least one storage to perform precisely the methods of Claims 1-3, respectively. As Glaese/Noh performs their method on a computer (Glaese, pg. 51, “screenshots” of their task indicate that it is performed on a computer), Claims 10-12 are rejected for reasons set forth in the rejections of Claims 1-3, respectively. Similarly, Claims 19-20 recite a non-transient computer readable storage medium storing programs to perform the methods of Claims 1-2, respectively, and are also rejected for reasons set forth in the rejections of Claims 1-2.
Claims 4 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Glaese, in view of Noh, and further in view of Yorita et al, “Chatbot Persona Selection Methodology for Emotional Support.”
Regarding Claim 4, the Glaese/Noh combination of 2 teaches the method according to Claim 2 (and thus the rejection of Claim 2 is incorporated). The combination does not teach additional questions using the selected persona model, but Yorita does teach in response to a dialog instruction of a first target generative model selected from the at least two target generative models, jumping to display a first chat interface associated with the first target generative model; receiving a content of a second-to-be processed question that is inputted in the first chat interface; and acquiring a second answer result for the content of the second-to-be processed question, wherein the second answer results is generated by the first target generative model (Yorita, pg. 336, Fig. 10 repeats the input of questions and persona-based responses, see 2nd column, last paragraph, “the chatbot engages in actively listening to the users’ store … giving persona-specific messages” with pg. 337, 2nd column, “to switch between personas while conducting a dialogue”) performing semantic analysis based on an occupational scene guide language associated with the first target generative model and the content of the second to-be-processed question (Yorita, pg. 336, 2nd column, final paragraph, “It uses Sentiwordnet as emotion recognition, giving personal-specific messages when the analysis is positive”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the Glaese/Noh combination to allow a user to select a persona after displaying the at least two first answer results in their conversation in the invention of Yorita. The motivation to do so is to allow a user-selected persona with personalized answers (Yorita, pg. 1, 2nd column, 2nd paragraph, “to improve usability”).
Claim 13 recites an electronic device comprising: at least one processor and at least one storage to perform precisely the method of Claim 4. As Glaese/Noh performs their method on a computer (Glaese, pg. 51, “screenshots” of their task indicate that it is performed on a computer), Claim 13 is rejected for reasons set forth in the rejection of Claim 4.
Claims 5, 6, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Glaese, in view of Noh, and further in view of Goslin, US PG Pub 2021/0075747.
Regarding Claim 5, the Glaese/Noh combination of Claim 1 teaches the method according to Claim 1 (and thus the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated). The combination does not teach, but Goslin does teach, displaying a plurality of virtual images respectively representing the generative models of different types, wherein the plurality of virtual images are related to [personas] associated with the generative models (Goslin, Fig. 4, elements 314 denote different generative chat models, see [0006], “The first messaging icon may represent a first chatbot having a first persona”). Glaese/Noh teaches that the personas of the different models are related to occupational scenes. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to allow different icons to represent the different personas of the chat models. The motivation to do so is to allow easy selection of a preferred model.
Regarding Claim 6, the Glaese/Noh/Goslin combination of Claim 5 teaches the method of Claim 5 (and thus the rejection of Claim 5 is incorporated). The combination, via Goslin, has already been shown to teach in a form of a plurality of functional cards combined, displaying the plurality of functional cards, wherein the plurality of functional cards are used for displaying corresponding function information respectively (Goslin, Fig. 4); and in response to a switching operation for a first functional card among the plurality of functional cards, switching to display functional information corresponding to the first functional card (Goslin, Fig. 5, elements 504 is in response to selecting the frown functional card) wherein the plurality of functional cards comprise a historical dialog functional card and a question asking functional card, the historical dialog functional card displays historical question-and-answer information, and the question asking functional card displays the plurality of images (Goslin, Fig. 4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the chat bot GUI of Goslin Fig. 4, comprising the recited functional cards, in the Glaese/Noh/Goslin combination of Claim 5. The motivation to do so is to allow a chat conversation with easily selectable persona icons.
Claims 14-15 recite an electronic device comprising: at least one processor and at least one storage to perform precisely the methods of Claims 5-6, respectively. As Glaese/Noh performs their method on a computer (Glaese, pg. 51, “screenshots” of their task indicate that it is performed on a computer), Claims 14-15 are rejected for reasons set forth in the rejections of Claims 5-6, respectively.
Claims 7 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Glaese, in view of Noh and Goslin, and further in view of Marco, US PG Pub 2023/0305679.
Regarding Claim 7, the Glaese/Noh/Goslin combination of Claim 6 teaches the method according to Claim 6 (and thus the rejection of Claim 6 is incorporated). The combination does not teach, but Marco does teach, in response to a detail introduction view operation for a virtual image in the plurality of virtual images, displaying an information card of the virtual image, and displaying detail introduction information of the virtual image in the information card (Marco, [0091], “a user can hover their cursor over one of the icons in the legend to learn more information about the type of icon. For example, if a user hovers over a direct relationship icon, the explorer user interface 1000 can display information that explains what a direct relationship is”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to allow a user an interface option in order to select to display more information about a given icon. The motivation to do so is to easily allow a user to learn more information related to that icon.
Claim 16 recites an electronic device comprising: at least one processor and at least one storage to perform precisely the method of Claim 7. As Glaese/Noh performs their method on a computer (Glaese, pg. 51, “screenshots” of their task indicate that it is performed on a computer), Claim 16 is rejected for reasons set forth in the rejection of Claim 7.
Claims 8 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Glaese, in view of Noh, and further in view of Mishra, US PG Pub 2021/0174241.
Regarding Claim 8, the Glaese/Noh combination of Claim 1 teaches the method according to Claim 1 (and thus the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated). The combination does not teach, but Mishra does teach, performing intention recognition on the content of the first to-be-processed question and obtaining a target intention category of the first to-be-processed question, wherein the target intention category represents an intention category of a [model type] required for answering the first to-be-processed question (Mishra, [0106], “an example process for controlling invocation of at least one of a plurality of available chatbots … determining an intent of the user based on a chat log of the chat session … extracting a set of traits from the chat session … where the set of traits extracted is indicative of at least one trait requirement that a response to a user must satisfy”); and according to the target intention category and [model type] feature information associated with the generative models, matching the target intention category with each piece of [model type] information, and determining the target generative model which meets a similarity condition from the generative models (Mishra, [0106], “based on a distance mapping and a pre-determined similarity threshold … selecting a chatbot from the plurality of available chatbots based on the set of traits extracted”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select possible chatbots (where in the Glaese/Noh combination, each chatbot is associated with an occupational scene) in the Glaese/Noh combination, based upon similarity to an inferred intent, as does Mishra, in a chatbot environment. The motivation to do so is to select chatbots appropriate for the intent of the user’s inputted question.
Claim 17 recites an electronic device comprising: at least one processor and at least one storage to perform precisely the method of Claim 8. As Glaese/Noh performs their method on a computer (Glaese, pg. 51, “screenshots” of their task indicate that it is performed on a computer), Claim 17 is rejected for reasons set forth in the rejection of Claim 8.
Claims 9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Glaese, in view of Noh and Goslin, and further in view of Yorita.
Regarding Claim 9, the Glaese/Noh/Goslin combination of Claim 5 teaches the method according to Claim 5 (and thus the rejection of Claim 5 is incorporated). The Glase/Noh/Goslin combination as described only deals with a selection of one icon, but Goslin, Figs. 3-5 and Noh, Figs. 8-9, each allow for the selection of more than one generative model, i.e. the combination allows a selection operation for a second virtual image among the plurality of virtual images. Further, Yorita teaches both that the question-answer chat repeats, and that different personas can be selected to answer each question (Yorita, pg. 336, Fig. 10 repeats the input of questions and persona-based responses, see 2nd column, last paragraph, “the chatbot engages in actively listening to the users’ store … giving persona-specific messages” with pg. 337, 2nd column, “to switch between personas while conducting a dialogue”). Thus, combining the multiple-question rounds of the chatbot of Yorita with ability to select the different occupational persona/chatbot models via icons of the Glaese/Noh/Goslin combination teaches in response to a selection operation for a second virtual image among the plurality of virtual images, displaying a third chat interface associated with the second virtual images, and receiving the content of a [next] to-be-processed question inputted in the third chat interface, wherein the second virtual image is associated with a generative model trained based on an occupational scene; acquiring a third answer result for the content of the [next[ to-be-processed question, wherein the third answer result is generated by the generative model associated with the second virtual image, and displaying the third answer result in the third chat interface. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the occupational persona selection method of Glaese/Noh/Goslin to the repeated question-answer system of Yorita. The motivation to do so is to allow selection of the multiple personas of Yorita by the user comparing potential results and using icons, a la Glaese/Noh/Goslin combination.
Claim 18 recites an electronic device comprising: at least one processor and at least one storage to perform precisely the method of Claim 9. As Glaese/Noh performs their method on a computer (Glaese, pg. 51, “screenshots” of their task indicate that it is performed on a computer), Claim 18 is rejected for reasons set forth in the rejection of Claim 9.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN M SMITH whose telephone number is (469)295-9104. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00am - 4pm Pacific.
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, Kakali Chaki can be reached at (571) 272-3719. 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.
/BRIAN M SMITH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2122
Prosecution Insights