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 .
This Office Action is in response to correspondence filed 06 August 2024 in reference to application 18/795,487. Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1, 8, and 15 recite receiving a voice input from a user; identifying at least one first user intent and a plurality of slots based on the voice input, wherein the plurality of slots comprises at least one slot related to the at least one first user intent and at least one slot unrelated to the at least one first user intent; identifying at least one second user intent based on the voice input and the at least one slot unrelated to the at least one first user intent; and performing at least one first operation based on the at least one first user intent and at least one second operation based on the at least one second user intent.
The limitation of receiving a voice input from a user, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “by a voice assistant device” in claim 1, a processor and memory in claim 8, and “non-transitory computer readable medium” in claim 15, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the computer components, “receiving” in the context of this claim encompasses a person listening to a voice input spoken by a user.
The limitation of identifying at least one first user intent and a plurality of slots based on the voice input, wherein the plurality of slots comprises at least one slot related to the at least one first user intent and at least one slot unrelated to the at least one first user intent, is process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the computer components, “identifying” in the context of this claim encompasses the person recognizing a first intent of the user and a plurality of slot values, and determining that one slot value is not related to the intent.
The limitation of identifying at least one second user intent based on the voice input and the at least one slot unrelated to the at least one first user intent, is process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the computer components, “identifying” in the context of this claim encompasses the person recognizing a second intent from the slot values not associated with the first intent.
The limitation of performing at least one first operation based on the at least one first user intent and at least one second operation based on the at least one second user intent, is process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the computer components, “performing” in the context of this claim encompasses the person providing answers or othering performing steps to fulfill the first and second intents. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims only additionally recites “by a voice assistant device” in claim 1, a processor and memory in claim 8, and “non-transitory computer readable medium” in claim 15. These components are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of computer components to perform the various steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
Claims 2, 9 and 16 further recite identifying a correlation between the at least one first user intent and the at least one second user intent; identifying, based on the correlation, an order for performing the at least one first operation and the at least one second operation; and performing, based on the order, the at least one first operation and the at least one second operation. However a person could perform these steps by observing correlation between the intents, deciding on an order to perform the intents, and performing the operations in the decided order. Thus these steps are part of a mental process as well. Similar to above, no other limitations are provided in the claim that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea or provide a practical application. Therefore these claims are not patent eligible.
Claims 3, 10 and 17 further recite inputting the voice input into a single-intent classifier, and wherein the identifying, by the voice assistant device, the at least one second user intent comprises inputting, into the single-intent classifier, the at least one slot unrelated to the at least one first user intent and the at least one slot related to the at least one first user intent. However a person could perform these steps by acting as a classifier by observing each of the intents and slots and determining a classification. Thus these steps are part of a mental process as well. These claims additionally recite a “single intent classifier,” however no detail of this classifier is given and thus may be interpreted as generic computer code running on generic computer components. Similar to above, no other limitations are provided in the claim that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea or provide a practical application. Therefore these claims are not patent eligible.
Claims 4, 11 and 18 further recite identifying at least one domain based on the at least one first user intent and the at least one second user intent.. However a person could observe the specified inputs and determine a domain. Thus these steps are part of a mental process as well. Similar to above, no other limitations are provided in the claim that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea or provide a practical application. Therefore these claims are not patent eligible.
Claims 5, 12 and 19 further recite based on the plurality of slots including the at least one slot unrelated to the at least one first user intent, performing, by the voice assistant device, the at least one second operation. However a person could perform the task related to the second operation. Thus these steps are part of a mental process as well. Similar to above, no other limitations are provided in the claim that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea or provide a practical application. Therefore these claims are not patent eligible.
Claims 6, 13 and 20 further recite based on the plurality of slots not including the at least one slot unrelated to the at least one first user intent, halting, by the voice assistant device, the at least one second operation. However a person could stop performing the second operation. Thus these steps are part of a mental process as well. Similar to above, no other limitations are provided in the claim that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea or provide a practical application. Therefore these claims are not patent eligible.
Claims 7 and 14 further recite wherein the identifying the at least one second user intent is performed in parallel with the performing the at least one first operation. However a person could think about and identify an intent while performing another operation. Thus these steps are part of a mental process as well. Similar to above, no other limitations are provided in the claim that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea or provide a practical application. Therefore these claims are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 3-8, 10-15, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Erbas et al. (US Patent 11,410,646).
Consider claim 1, Erbas teaches a method for handling voice input by a voice assistant device (abstract), the method comprising:
receiving, by the voice assistant device, a voice input from a user (col 3 lines 10-20 for example);
identifying, by the voice assistant device, at least one first user intent and a plurality of slots based on the voice input, wherein the plurality of slots comprises at least one slot related to the at least one first user intent and at least one slot unrelated to the at least one first user intent (col 10 lines 47-50, identifying intents, lines 62-67, identifying slots, col 18 lines 32-50, identifying second portions of utterances that are not the same command as the first utterance);
identifying, by the voice assistant device, at least one second user intent based on the voice input and the at least one slot unrelated to the at least one first user intent (col 18 lines 32-50, identifying second portions of utterances that are not the same command as the first utterance, col 10 lines 47-50, identifying intents); and
performing, by the voice assistant device, at least one first operation based on the at least one first user intent and at least one second operation based on the at least one second user intent (col 18 lines 45-55, executing the multiple commands within the utterance).
Consider claim 3, Erbas teaches wherein the identifying, by the voice assistant device, the at least one first user intent comprises inputting the voice input into a single-intent classifier (col 10 lines 42-50, intent classification module), and
wherein the identifying, by the voice assistant device, the at least one second user intent comprises inputting, into the single-intent classifier, the at least one slot unrelated to the at least one first user intent and the at least one slot related to the at least one first user intent (col 18 lines 32-50, identifying second portions of utterances that are not the same command as the first utterance and sending to intent classifier, col 10 lines 47-50, identifying intents).
Consider claim 4, Erbas teaches The method of claim 3, further comprising: identifying, by the single-intent classifier, at least one domain based on the at least one first user intent and the at least one second user intent ( col 9 lines 59-67 col 11 lines 10-22), identifying the domain of the intents).
Consider claim 5, Erbas teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: based on the plurality of slots including the at least one slot unrelated to the at least one first user intent, performing, by the voice assistant device, the at least one second operation (col 18 lines 32-50, identifying second portions of utterances that are not the same command as the first utterance, col 10 lines 47-56, identifying intents, and performing the operations if present).
Consider claim 6, Erbas teaches The method of claim 1, further comprising: based on the plurality of slots not including the at least one slot unrelated to the at least one first user intent, halting, by the voice assistant device, the at least one second operation ((col 18 lines 32-50, identifying second portions of utterances that are not the same command as the first utterance, col 10 lines 47-56, identifying intents, and performing the operations ONLY if present).
Consider claim 7, Erbas teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the identifying the at least one second user intent is performed in parallel with the performing the at least one first operation (col 3 lines 25-30, commands can be processed sequentially or in parallel).
Consider claim 8, Erbas teaches A voice assistant device comprising:
at least one memory storing one or more instructions (col 14 lines 15-30, memory, RAM);
at least one processor coupled to the at least one memory and configured to execute the one or more instructions (col 24 lines 14-20, CPU), wherein the one or more instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the voice assistant device to:
receive a voice input from a user (col 3 lines 10-20 for example),
identify at least one first user intent and a plurality of slots based on the voice input, wherein the plurality of slots comprises at least one slot related to the at least one first user intent and at least one slot unrelated to the at least one first user intent (col 10 lines 47-50, identifying intents, lines 62-67, identifying slots, col 18 lines 32-50, identifying second portions of utterances that are not the same command as the first utterance),
identify at least one second user intent based on the voice input and the at least one slot unrelated to the at least one first user intent (col 18 lines 32-50, identifying second portions of utterances that are not the same command as the first utterance, col 10 lines 47-50, identifying intents), and
perform at least one first operation based on the at least one first user intent and at least one second operation based on the at least one second user intent (col 18 lines 45-55, executing the multiple commands within the utterance).
Claim 10 contains similar limitations as claim 3 and is therefore rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 11 contains similar limitations as claim 4 and is therefore rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 12 contains similar limitations as claim 5 and is therefore rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 13 contains similar limitations as claim 6 and is therefore rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 14 contains similar limitations as claim 7 and is therefore rejected for the same reasons.
Consider claim 15, Erbas teaches A non-transitory computer readable medium having instructions stored therein, which when executed by at least one processor cause the at least one processor to execute a method for handling voice input by a voice assistant device (col 14 lines 3-32, computer storage), the method comprising:
receiving, by the voice assistant device, a voice input from a user (col 3 lines 10-20 for example);
identifying, by the voice assistant device, at least one first user intent and a plurality of slots based on the voice input, wherein the plurality of slots comprises at least one slot related to the at least one first user intent and at least one slot unrelated to the at least one first user intent (col 10 lines 47-50, identifying intents, lines 62-67, identifying slots, col 18 lines 32-50, identifying second portions of utterances that are not the same command as the first utterance);
identifying, by the voice assistant device, at least one second user intent based on the voice input and the at least one slot unrelated to the at least one first user intent (col 18 lines 32-50, identifying second portions of utterances that are not the same command as the first utterance, col 10 lines 47-50, identifying intents); and
performing, by the voice assistant device, at least one first operation based on the at least one first user intent and at least one second operation based on the at least one second user intent (col 18 lines 45-55, executing the multiple commands within the utterance).
Claim 17 contains similar limitations as claim 3 and is therefore rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 18 contains similar limitations as claim 4 and is therefore rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 19 contains similar limitations as claim 5 and is therefore rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 20 contains similar limitations as claim 6 and is therefore rejected for the same reasons.
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, 9, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Erbas in view of Andreica (US PAP 2021/0295841).
Consider claim 2, Erbas teaches The method of claim 1, but does not specifically teach wherein the performing, by the voice assistant device, the at least one first operation and the at least one second operation comprises:
identifying a correlation between the at least one first user intent and the at least one second user intent;
identifying, based on the correlation, an order for performing the at least one first operation and the at least one second operation; and
performing, based on the order, the at least one first operation and the at least one second operation.
In the same field of processing multiple intent utterances, Andreica teaches herein the performing, by the voice assistant device, the at least one first operation and the at least one second operation comprises:
identifying a correlation between the at least one first user intent and the at least one second user intent (0069-72, ordering relationship instructions can be detected or relationship between intents may be determined based on context etc);
identifying, based on the correlation, an order for performing the at least one first operation and the at least one second operation (0069-72, determining order of execution); and
performing, based on the order, the at least one first operation and the at least one second operation (0073, executing the intents in determined order).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to determine order as taught by Andreica in the system of Erbas in order to more efficiently process user commands (Andreica 0001-03).
Claim 9 contains similar limitations as claim 2 and is therefore rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 16 contains similar limitations as claim 2 and is therefore rejected for the same reasons.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Park et al (US PAP 2019/0164540) teaches similar methods of handling multiple intents in an utterance.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOUGLAS C GODBOLD whose telephone number is (571)270-1451. The examiner can normally be reached 6:30am-5pm Monday-Thursday.
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, Andrew Flanders can be reached at (571)272-7516. 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.
DOUGLAS GODBOLD
Examiner
Art Unit 2655
/DOUGLAS GODBOLD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2655