DETAILED ACTION
This office action is a response to an application filed 08/09/2024, wherein claims 1-20 are pending and ready for an examination.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/14/2025, 10/14/2025, 11/11/2025 and 12/01/2025 were filed before the mailing date of the non-final action on 02/09/2026. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 a non-statutory subject matter. The claims invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As to claim 1, 12 and 19, the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance lays out the steps for analysis of claims for an abstract idea. Step 1 is “Do the claims fall within the statutory categories?” Claims 1-11 are directed to one or more processors and fall within the statutory category of machines, claims 12-18 are directed to a system and fall within the statutory category of machines, and claims 19-20 are directed to a method and fall within the statutory category of processes. Therefore, “are the claims to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?” Yes.
The next step is Step 2A Prong 1, “Does the claim recite a judicial exception (an abstract idea)?” Yes. Claimed limitations of “trigger… one or more matching interaction flows…presentation of a rendering of one or more responsive agent or scene actions” as claimed in independent claims, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind (mental process). If a claimed limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations 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 1, 12 and 19 recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2, “Evaluating additional elements in the claims to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception” No. There are no further additional elements in the claims that can be integrated as an exception into a practical application of the exception. All of the elements claimed can be interpreted as an abstract idea.
Claim 1: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the following additional elements - (1) "processing circuitry", (2) "track one or more interrupted interaction flows that represent one or more human-machine interactions”, (3) " check one or more incoming interaction events for one or more matching interaction flows of the one or more interrupted interaction flows", and (4) " trigger, in response to identifying the one or more matching interaction flows, presentation of a rendering of one or more responsive agent or scene actions specified by the one or more matching interaction flows." Additional elements (1) and (2) are merely recitations of generic computing components and functions being used as a tool to apply the abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)), which does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Additional elements (3) and (4) are merely recitations of data gathering (i.e., insignificant extra-solution activity) and field of use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) which do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 12: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In Claim 12: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the following additional element - "one or more responsive agent or scene actions specified by the one or more matching interaction flows" which is merely a recitation of generic computing components and functions being used as a tool to apply the abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)), which does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 19: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the following additional element - "checking one or more incoming interaction events for one or more matching interaction flows of one or more interrupted interaction flows that represent one or more human-machine interactions" which is merely a recitation of data gathering (i.e., insignificant extra-solution activity) which does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
The next step is Step 2B, “evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) than the recited judicial exception”.
Claim 1: The claim does not recite additional elements, alone or in combination, 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 elements amount to no more than generic computing components, mere data gathering, and field of use/technological environment which do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 12: The claim does not recite additional elements, alone or in combination, 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 amounts to no more than generic computing components which does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 19: The claim does not recite additional elements, alone or in combination, 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 amounts to no more than mere data gathering which does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, "Do the claims recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?" No, these additional elements, alone or in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. These are well-understood, routine activities (Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result--a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink.")); “clustering one or more other tickets into metric levels based on information about the question contained in the digital record of the new ticket, wherein clustering the one or more tickets includes utilizing an unsupervised machine learning technique; training a metric model using a database of tickets comprising features extracted from information from the ticket management system” is Performing repetitive calculations (Flook, 437 U.S. at 594, 198 USPQ2d at 199 (recomputing or readjusting alarm limit values); Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1278, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ("The computer required by some of Bancorp’s claims is employed only for its most basic function, the performance of repetitive calculations, and as such does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims.")).
Having concluded analysis within the provided framework, claims 1, 12, and 19 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
Claims 2 and 13 recite the additional element of "wherein the processing circuitry is further to generate a representation of the one or more interrupted interaction flows based at least on activating one or more instruction lines of one or more initial interaction flows and interrupting the one or more instruction lines at one or more corresponding event matchers" which is merely a recitation of generic computing components and functions being used as a tool to apply the abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)), which does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Claims 2 and 13 do not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into a practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claims 2 and 13 fail both Step 2A Prong 2 for being directed to a judicial exception that has not been integrated into a practical application and Step 2B for not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claims 2 and 13 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
Claims 3 and 14 recite the additional element of "wherein the processing circuitry is further to advance the one or more matching interaction flows based at least on advancing one or more flow heads of a hierarchy of flow heads pointing to one or more current positions of the one or more matching interaction flows" which is merely a recitation of generic computing components and functions being used as a tool to apply the abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)), which does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Claims 3 and 14 do not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into a practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claims 3 and 14 fail both Step 2A Prong 2 for being directed to a judicial exception that has not been integrated into a practical application and Step 2B for not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claims 3 and 14 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
Claims 4 and 15 recite the additional element of "wherein the processing circuitry is further to check for the one or more matching interaction flows based at least on testing one or more event matchers specified by the one or more interrupted interaction flows for one or more matches with the one or more incoming interaction events" which is merely a recitation of generic computing components and functions being used as a tool to apply the abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)), which does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Claims 4 and 15 do not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into a practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claims 4 and 15 fail both Step 2A Prong 2 for being directed to a judicial exception that has not been integrated into a practical application and Step 2B for not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claims 4 and 15 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
Claims 5 and 16 recite the additional element of "wherein the processing circuitry is further to advance, in response to identifying the one or more matching interaction flows that match the one or more incoming interaction events, one or more instruction lines of the one or more matching interaction flows" which is merely a recitation of generic computing components and functions being used as a tool to apply the abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)), which does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Claims 5 and 16 do not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into a practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claims 5 and 16 fail both Step 2A Prong 2 for being directed to a judicial exception that has not been integrated into a practical application and Step 2B for not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claims 5 and 16 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
Claims 6 and 17 recite the additional element of "wherein the processing circuitry is further to advance, in response to identifying the one or more matching interaction flows that match the one or more incoming interaction events, one or more instruction lines of the one or more matching interaction flows" which is merely a recitation of generic computing components and functions being used as a tool to apply the abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)), which does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Claims 6 and 17 do not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into a practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claims 6 and 17 fail both Step 2A Prong 2 for being directed to a judicial exception that has not been integrated into a practical application and Step 2B for not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claims 6 and 17 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
Claim 7 recite the additional element of "wherein the processing circuitry is further to trigger, based at least on applying conflict resolution in response to determining that a plurality of matching interaction flows that match a first incoming interaction event disagree on a responsive agent or scene action, advancing a winning interaction flow of the plurality of matching interaction flows" which is merely a recitation of generic computing components and functions being used as a tool to apply the abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)), which does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Claim 7 do not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into a practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 7 fail both Step 2A Prong 2 for being directed to a judicial exception that has not been integrated into a practical application and Step 2B for not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 7 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
Claim 8 recite the additional element of "wherein the processing circuitry is further to trigger, based at least on applying conflict resolution in response to determining that a plurality of matching interaction flows of the one or more interrupted interaction flows that match a first incoming interaction event disagree on a responsive agent or scene action, aborting a losing interaction flow of the plurality of matching interaction flows" which is merely a recitation of generic computing components and functions being used as a tool to apply the abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)), which does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Claim 8 do not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into a practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 8 fail both Step 2A Prong 2 for being directed to a judicial exception that has not been integrated into a practical application and Step 2B for not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 8 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
Claim 9 recite the additional element of "wherein the processing circuitry is further to apply, in response to determining that there are no matching interaction flows of the one or more interrupted interaction flows that match a first incoming interaction event, one or more unhandled event handlers" which is merely a recitation of generic computing components and functions being used as a tool to apply the abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)), which does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Claim 9 do not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into a practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 9 fail both Step 2A Prong 2 for being directed to a judicial exception that has not been integrated into a practical application and Step 2B for not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 9 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
Claim 10 recite the additional element of "wherein the processing circuitry is further to, in response to advancing the one or more matching interaction flows identifying one or more completed or aborted flows of the one or more matching interaction flows, stop a set of the one or more interrupted interaction flows comprising one or more child flows that were activated by the one or more completed or aborted flows" which is merely a recitation of generic computing components and functions being used as a tool to apply the abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)), which does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Claim 10 do not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into a practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 10 fail both Step 2A Prong 2 for being directed to a judicial exception that has not been integrated into a practical application and Step 2B for not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 10 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
Claims 11, 18, and 20 recite the additional element of " wherein the one or more processors are comprised in at least one of: a control system for an autonomous or semi-autonomous machine; a perception system for an autonomous or semi-autonomous machine; a system for performing simulation operations; a system for performing digital twin operations; a system for performing light transport simulation; a system for performing collaborative content creation for 3D assets; a system for performing deep learning operations; a system for performing remote operations; a system for performing real-time streaming; a system for generating or presenting one or more of augmented reality content, virtual reality content, or mixed reality content; a system implemented using an edge device; a system implemented using a robot; a system for performing conversational AI operations; a system implementing one or more language models; a system implementing one or more large language models (LLMs); a system implementing one or more vision language models (VLMs); a system implementing one or more multimodal language models; a system for generating synthetic data; a system for generating synthetic data using AI; 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” implemented at least partially using cloud computing resources" which is merely a recitation of field of use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Claims 11, 18, and 20 do not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into a practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claims 11, 18, and 20 fail both Step 2A Prong 2 for being directed to a judicial exception that has not been integrated into a practical application and Step 2B for not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claims 11, 18, and 20 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
Therefore, claims 1-20 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 11-13 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Marzinzik et al. (US 2024/0086148), hereinafter “Marzinzik”. Marzinzik cited in applicant IDS filed 12/01/2025.
With respect to claim 1, Marzinzik discloses one or more processors comprising processing circuitry to:
track one or more interrupted interaction flows that represent one or more human-machine interactions (¶0012, teaches store a plurality of completed conversations, where each conversation of the plurality of completed conversations includes a plurality of interactions between a user and a voice bot, ¶0053-¶0054, teaches detecting one or more pauses in the verbal statement (i.e. interrupted interaction flows) … user experience when interacting with a chatbot application (i.e. human-machine interaction);
check one or more incoming interaction events for one or more matching interaction flows of the one or more interrupted interaction flows (¶0051, teaches an analysis system may analyze (i.e. check) the logs for errors and/or other issues that may have occurred on one or more calls/conversations (i.e. incoming interaction events). For example, the report logs may include the time of incoming calls, what the calls related to, how the calls were addressed or directed, etc, ¶0053, teaches detecting one or more pauses in the verbal statement (i.e. interrupted interaction flows)…selecting, for each of the plurality of utterances, based upon the intent corresponding (i.e. matching) to the utterance, a bot to analyze the utterance); and
trigger, in response to identifying the one or more matching interaction flows, presentation of a rendering of one or more responsive agent or scene actions specified by the one or more matching interaction flows (¶0051, teaches an analysis system may analyze (i.e. check) the logs for errors and/or other issues that may have occurred on one or more calls/conversations (i.e. incoming interaction events), ¶0053, teaches generating a response by applying the bot selected for each of the plurality of utterances to the corresponding (i.e. matching) utterance, ¶0146, teaches the multimodal server 1515 may cause the audio response to be presented (i.e. presentation of rendering) to the user 1405 via their user computer device 1505, ¶0173, teaches the MultiModal Server 1515 may provide the second response to the user via the voice bot (i.e. responsive agent) 1565. ¶0175, teaches trigger event is detected from analysis of the data, ¶0203, teaches the system 1800 may classify each completed conversation based upon the analysis of the corresponding conversation. The analysis of the corresponding (i.e. matching) conversation (i.e. interaction) may include determining which actions were taken by the voice bot 1565 in response to one or more actions of the user 1405).
For claim 12, it is a system claim corresponding to the processors (i.e. an apparatus) of claim 1. Therefore claim 12 is rejected under the same ground as claim 1.
For claim 19, it is a method claim corresponding to the processors (i.e. an apparatus) of claim 1. Therefore claim 19 is rejected under the same ground as claim 1.
With respect to claims 2 and 13, Marzinzik discloses the one or more processors of claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is further to generate a representation of the one or more interrupted interaction flows based at least on activating one or more instruction lines of one or more initial interaction flows and interrupting the one or more instruction lines at one or more corresponding event matchers (Marzinzik, ¶0053, teaches detecting one or more pauses in the verbal statement (i.e. interrupted interaction flows)…selecting, for each of the plurality of utterances, based upon the intent corresponding (i.e. matching) to the utterance, a bot to analyze the utterance, ¶0064, teaches the SA computer device 205 may fulfill 230 the request from the user based upon the analyzed and interpreted conversation data, ¶0128, teaches the application UI 1430 may display an Assistant View that may display “clickable” suggestions (or “touchable” suggestions on a touch screen or display) that the user 1405 may interact with. Furthermore, the application UI 1430 may prompt the bot audio 1435 to create an audio prompt. The application UI 1430 may then transmit the audio prompt to the user 1405. The user 1405 may then provide a response, such as the user audio interaction 1425 “I need to create a grocery list.” The bot audio 1435 processes the user audio interaction 1425 and generates a response “Sure lets get started, what would you like on your list? (i.e. one or more instruction lines)” The response is presented to the user 1405 via audio. The application UI 1430 may also update to show a grocery list view).
With respect to claims 11, 18 and 20, Marzinzik discloses the one or more processors of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are comprised in at least one of:
a control system for an autonomous or semi-autonomous machine;
a perception system for an autonomous or semi-autonomous machine;
a system for performing simulation operations;
a system for performing digital twin operations;
a system for performing light transport simulation;
a system for performing collaborative content creation for 3D assets;
a system for performing deep learning operations (Marzinzik, ¶0212, teaches at least one of a plurality of ML methods and algorithms may be applied, which may include but are not limited to: linear or logistic regression, instance-based algorithms, regularization algorithms, decision trees, Bayesian networks, cluster analysis, association rule learning, artificial neural networks, deep learning, combined learning, reinforced learning, dimensionality reduction, and support vector machines ;
a system for performing remote operations;
a system for performing real-time streaming;
a system for generating or presenting one or more of augmented reality content, virtual reality content, or mixed reality content;
a system implemented using an edge device;
a system implemented using a robot;
a system for performing conversational AI operations;
a system implementing one or more language models;
a system implementing one or more large language models (LLMs);
a system implementing one or more vision language models (VLMs);
a system implementing one or more multimodal language models (Marzinzik, ¶049, teaches the SA computer device may also be in communication with a multimodal system that may be used to combine the audio processing of the bots with visual and/or text-based communication with the users);
a system for generating synthetic data;
a system for generating synthetic data using AI;
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.
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) 3-10 and 14-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marzinzik in view of Weider et al. (US 2011/0231182), hereinafter “Weider”. Weider cited in applicant IDS filed 12/01/2025.
With respect to claims 3 and 14, Marzinzik discloses the one or more processors of claim 1, however, Marzinzik remain silent on wherein the processing circuitry is further to advance the one or more matching interaction flows based at least on advancing one or more flow heads of a hierarchy of flow heads pointing to one or more current positions of the one or more matching interaction flows.
Weider discloses wherein the processing circuitry is further to advance the one or more matching interaction flows based at least on advancing one or more flow heads of a hierarchy of flow heads pointing to one or more current positions of the one or more matching interaction flows (¶0119, teaches the text combination may be compared against entries in a context description grammar that is associated with each agent 106. If a match is identified between an active grammar in the context description grammar and the command and/or request, then the match may be scored. The agents 106 may be ranked based on the determined score, ¶0135, teaches a model derived from a user's interaction pattern with the system and may be used to predict what actions the user may take next (i.e. advance) in time, thus assisting with speech recognition and/or question or command recognition, ¶0141, teaches the conversational speech analyzer 804 may access the personalized cognitive model 810 to proactively select a next best (or nth best) match (i.e. flow heads of hierarchy of flow heads pointing) for the received text. A match may be confirmed by user action that include the user not immediately canceling the command or taking other action, ¶0198, teaches once the context and the criteria are determined, the parser 118 may form the question or command in a standard format or hierarchical data structure (i.e. flow heads of a hierarchy) used for processing by the agents 150, 156).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Marzinzik’s detecting one or more pauses in the verbal statement (i.e. interrupted interaction flows) with advance the one or more matching interaction flows based at least on advancing one or more flow heads of a hierarchy of flow heads pointing to one or more current positions of the one or more matching interaction flows of Weider, in order to determine which flows should advance first or together (Weider).
With respect to claims 4 and 15, Marzinzik discloses the one or more processors of claim 1, however, Marzinzik remain silent on wherein the processing circuitry is further to check for the one or more matching interaction flows based at least on testing one or more event matchers specified by the one or more interrupted interaction flows for one or more matches with the one or more incoming interaction events.
Weider discloses wherein the processing circuitry is further to check for the one or more matching interaction flows based at least on testing one or more event matchers specified by the one or more interrupted interaction flows for one or more matches with the one or more incoming interaction events (¶0120, teaches the knowledge-enhanced speech recognition may use context specific matchers that are able to identify context such as time, location, numbers, dates, categories (e.g., music, movies, television, addresses, etc.) and other context. The matching may be performed by comparing a character, group of characters, a word, group of words, and other text combinations. Alternatively, or in addition to text based matching, the matching may be performed using phonetic matching, among other techniques. The results of any match may be used to generate a command and/or request that is communicated to agents 106 for additional processing, ¶0149, teaches multimodal support may be provided to maintain the context during both voice interaction and interaction (i.e. interaction flows) through the non-speech interface 114, ¶0152, teaches Agents 106 may receive (i.e. incoming interaction event) and return events to the event manager 100, ¶0204, teaches the domain agent 156 can evaluate (i.e. test) the results of the one or more queries as they arrive. The domain agent may score the relevance of the results based on results already received, the context, the criteria, the history of the dialog, the user profile 110 and domain specific information using probabilistic or fuzzy scoring techniques. ¶0209, teaches the domain agent 156 may continue to make queries and evaluate (i.e. test) results until a satisfactory response is constructed).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Marzinzik’s detecting one or more pauses in the verbal statement (i.e. interrupted interaction flows) with check for the one or more matching interaction flows based at least on testing one or more event matchers specified by the one or more interrupted interaction flows for one or more matches with the one or more incoming interaction events of Weider, in order to prevent unrelated or stale flows from being resumed by the wrong event and reduces unnecessary processing and keeps the system scalable (Weider).
With respect to claims 5 and 16, Marzinzik discloses the one or more processors of claim 1, however, Marzinzik remain silent on wherein the processing circuitry is further to advance, in response to identifying the one or more matching interaction flows that match the one or more incoming interaction events, one or more instruction lines of the one or more matching interaction flows.
Weider discloses wherein the processing circuitry is further to advance, in response to identifying the one or more matching interaction flows that match the one or more incoming interaction events, one or more instruction lines of the one or more matching interaction flows (¶0120, teaches the knowledge-enhanced speech recognition may use context specific matchers that are able to identify context such as time, location, numbers, dates, categories (e.g., music, movies, television, addresses, etc.) and other context. The matching may be performed by comparing a character, group of characters, a word, group of words, and other text combinations. Alternatively, or in addition to text based matching, the matching may be performed using phonetic matching, among other techniques. The results of any match may be used to generate a command and/or request that is communicated to agents 106 for additional processing, ¶0130, teaches in order for devices to properly respond to requests and/or commands that are submitted in a natural language form, machine processable requests and/or algorithms may be formulated after the natural form questions or commands have been parsed and interpreted. Algorithms describe how the machines should gather data to respond to the questions or commands…Several requests and algorithms may need to be initiated and even these requests and algorithms may need to be chained or concatenated to achieve a complete response, ¶0135, teaches a model derived from a user's interaction pattern with the system and may be used to predict what actions the user may take next (i.e. advance) in time).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Marzinzik’s the bot audio processes the user audio interaction and generates a response “Sure lets get started, what would you like on your list? (i.e. one or more instruction lines) with advance, in response to identifying the one or more matching interaction flows that match the one or more incoming interaction events, one or more instruction lines of the one or more matching interaction flows of Weider, in order to continue accurately, efficiently and in the correct state in response to incoming interactive events and efficient handling of concurrent or repeated events without ambiguity (Weider).
With respect to claims 6 and 17, Marzinzik discloses the one or more processors of claim 1, however, Marzinzik remain silent on wherein the processing circuitry is further to determine, in response to determining that a plurality of matching interaction flows that match a first incoming interaction event agree on a responsive agent or scene action, to trigger the responsive agent or scene action.
Weider discloses wherein the processing circuitry is further to determine, in response to determining that a plurality of matching interaction flows that match a first incoming interaction event agree on a responsive agent or scene action, to trigger the responsive agent or scene action (¶0028, teaches the system may process and respond to questions, requests and/or commands. Keywords or context may be used to determine whether the received utterance and/or textual message includes a request or command. For example, utterances may include aspects of questions, requests and/or commands. For example, a user may utter “tune in my favorite radio station.” A request is processed to determine the name, the channel, and time for the users favorite radio station, ¶0034, teaches the system may trigger one or more agents to respond to the user's question or command. The agents may make one or more requests and rapidly return a formatted response. Thus, users may receive direct responses to a set of questions, each with a different response or context, ¶0119, teaches the text combination may be compared against entries in a context description grammar that is associated with each agent 106. If a match (i.e. first incoming interaction event) is identified between an active grammar in the context description grammar and the command and/or request, then the match may be scored. The agents 106 may be ranked based on the determined score. In generating an aggregate response from the one or more responses received from the agents 106).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Marzinzik’s system with determine, in response to determining that a plurality of matching interaction flows that match a first incoming interaction event agree on a responsive agent or scene action, to trigger the responsive agent or scene action of Weider, in order to ensure consistent behavior without conflicts or redundancy and allow the system to safely and efficiently trigger that action (weider).
With respect to claim 7, Marzinzik discloses the one or more processors of claim 1, however, Marzinzik remain silent on wherein the processing circuitry is further to trigger, based at least on applying conflict resolution in response to determining that a plurality of matching interaction flows that match a first incoming interaction event disagree on a responsive agent or scene action, advancing a winning interaction flow of the plurality of matching interaction flows.
Weider discloses wherein the processing circuitry is further to trigger, based at least on applying conflict resolution in response to determining that a plurality of matching interaction flows that match a first incoming interaction event disagree on a responsive agent or scene action, advancing a winning interaction flow of the plurality of matching interaction flows (¶0029 and ¶0031, teaches evaluating and interpreting the results, including processing of errors, gathered and combine them into a single best result (i.e. advancing a winning interaction flow) judged to be “best” even if the results are ambiguous, incomplete, or conflicting…Probabilistic or fuzzy set decision and matching methods may be applied to deal with inconsistent, ambiguous, conflicting and incomplete information or responses, ¶0040, teaches when multiple users are engaged in interleaved sessions, the system may gracefully resolve conflicts using a probabilistic or fuzzy set decision method for each user, ¶0193, teaches the parser may determine a context for an utterance by applying prior probabilities or fuzzy possibilities to keyword matching, user profile 110, dialog history, and context stack contents. The context of a question or command may determine the domain and, thereby, the domain agent 156, if any, to be invoked, ¶0201, teaches Even for objective questions, the system may need to apply probabilistic or fuzzy set analysis to deal with cases of conflicting information or incomplete information. Information to answer subjective questions is generally obtained by one or more ad-hoc queries to local or network data sources, followed by probabilistic or fuzzy set evaluation of the one results to determine a best answer).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Marzinzik’s system with trigger, based at least on applying conflict resolution in response to determining that a plurality of matching interaction flows that match a first incoming interaction event disagree on a responsive agent or scene action, advancing a winning interaction flow of the plurality of matching interaction flows of Weider, in order to ensure the system produces one predictable response instead of multiple or inconsistent actions and select response executed cleanly and the interaction continues from a single authoritative state (Weider).
With respect to claim 8, Marzinzik discloses the one or more processors of claim 1, however, Marzinzik remain silent on wherein the processing circuitry is further to trigger, based at least on applying conflict resolution in response to determining that a plurality of matching interaction flows of the one or more interrupted interaction flows that match a first incoming interaction event disagree on a responsive agent or scene action, aborting a losing interaction flow of the plurality of matching interaction flows.
Weider discloses wherein the processing circuitry is further to trigger, based at least on applying conflict resolution in response to determining that a plurality of matching interaction flows of the one or more interrupted interaction flows that match a first incoming interaction event disagree on a responsive agent or scene action, aborting a losing interaction flow of the plurality of matching interaction flows (¶0026, teaches the system may give the user interactive control over what information to present and how much information to present, to stop the response (i.e. aborting a losing interaction) all together, or to take other actions, ¶0040, teaches when multiple users are engaged in interleaved sessions, the system may gracefully resolve conflicts using a probabilistic or fuzzy set decision method for each user, ¶0193, teaches the parser may determine a context for an utterance by applying prior probabilities or fuzzy possibilities to keyword matching, user profile 110, dialog history, and context stack contents. The context of a question or command may determine the domain and, thereby, the domain agent 156, if any, to be invoked, ¶0201, teaches Even for objective questions, the system may need to apply probabilistic or fuzzy set analysis to deal with cases of conflicting information or incomplete information. Information to answer subjective questions is generally obtained by one or more ad-hoc queries to local or network data sources, followed by probabilistic or fuzzy set evaluation of the one results to determine a best answer).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Marzinzik’s system with trigger, based at least on applying conflict resolution in response to determining that a plurality of matching interaction flows of the one or more interrupted interaction flows that match a first incoming interaction event disagree on a responsive agent or scene action, aborting a losing interaction flow of the plurality of matching interaction flows of Weider, in order to ensure consistent behavior, preserve state correctness and allows the interaction to proceed cleanly under the authority of the winning flow (Weider).
With respect to claim 9, Marzinzik discloses the one or more processors of claim 1, however Marzinzik remain silent on wherein the processing circuitry is further to apply, in response to determining that there are no matching interaction flows of the one or more interrupted interaction flows that match a first incoming interaction event, one or more unhandled event handlers.
Weider discloses wherein the processing circuitry is further to apply, in response to determining that there are no matching interaction flows of the one or more interrupted interaction flows that match a first incoming interaction event, one or more unhandled event handlers (¶0120, teaches if a match is not found, or only a partial match is found, between the text message and active grammars, then a knowledge-enhanced speech recognition system may be used to semantically broaden the search. The knowledge-enhanced speech recognition system may be used to determine the intent of the request and/or to correct false recognitions, ¶0139, teaches upon a determination that text is unrecognized, the system may generate an unrecognized event. For example, an unrecognized event may result from not finding a match to text and/or the transcribed utterance).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Marzinzik’s system with apply, in response to determining that there are no matching interaction flows of the one or more interrupted interaction flows that match a first incoming interaction event, one or more unhandled event handlers of Weider, in order to ensure the system still produces a controlled response, preserve stability, and maintains a coherent interaction experience (Weider).
With respect to claim 10, Marzinzik discloses the one or more processors of claim 1, however, Marzinzik remain silent on wherein the processing circuitry is further to, in response to advancing the one or more matching interaction flows identifying one or more completed or aborted flows of the one or more matching interaction flows, stop a set of the one or more interrupted interaction flows comprising one or more child flows that were activated by the one or more completed or aborted flows.
Weider discloses wherein the processing circuitry is further to, in response to advancing the one or more matching interaction flows identifying one or more completed or aborted flows of the one or more matching interaction flows, stop a set of the one or more interrupted interaction flows comprising one or more child flows that were activated by the one or more completed or aborted flows (¶0120, teaches the knowledge-enhanced speech recognition may use context specific matchers that are able to identify context such as time, location, numbers, dates, categories (e.g., music, movies, television, addresses, etc.) and other context. The matching may be performed by comparing a character, group of characters, a word, group of words, and other text combinations. Alternatively, or in addition to text based matching, the matching may be performed using phonetic matching, among other techniques. The results of any match may be used to generate a command and/or request that is communicated to agents 106 for additional processing, ¶0130, teaches in order for devices to properly respond to requests and/or commands that are submitted in a natural language form, machine processable requests and/or algorithms may be formulated after the natural form questions or commands have been parsed and interpreted. Algorithms describe how the machines should gather data to respond to the questions or commands…Several requests and algorithms may need to be initiated and even these requests and algorithms may need to be chained or concatenated to achieve a complete response, ¶0026, teaches determining what parts of a long response are presented may be based on the context of the questions, the contents of the response being presented, the history of the interaction with the user, the user's preferences and interests and the nature of the domain. At the same time, the system may give the user interactive control over what information to present and how much information to present, to stop the response (i.e. aborting a losing interaction) all together, or to take other actions, ¶0040, teaches when multiple users are engaged in interleaved sessions, the system may gracefully resolve conflicts using a probabilistic or fuzzy set decision method for each user, ¶0043, teaches in many cases, the system may give the user a cue or response to indicate that the command has been successfully executed or has failed. In cases of failure, an interactive session may be started (child flows) to allow the user to resolve the difficulty or formulate a command more likely to succeed).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Marzinzik’s system with in response to advancing the one or more matching interaction flows identifying one or more completed or aborted flows of the one or more matching interaction flows, stop a set of the one or more interrupted interaction flows comprising one or more child flows that were activated by the one or more completed or aborted flows of Weider, in order to ensure consistent behavior, preserve state correctness and allows the interaction to proceed cleanly under the authority of the winning flow, and in the correct state in response to incoming interactive events and efficient handling of concurrent or repeated events without ambiguity (Weider).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20160335138 A1 teaches a digital assistant includes an extensibility client that interfaces with application extensions that are built by third-party developers so that various aspects of application user experiences, content, or features may be integrated into the digital assistant and rendered as native digital assistant experiences. Application extensions can use a variety of services provided from cloud-based and/or local sources such as language/vocabulary, user preferences, and context services that add intelligence and contextual relevance while enabling the extensions to plug in and operate seamlessly within the digital assistant context. Application extensions may also access and utilize general digital assistant functions, data structures, and libraries exposed by the services and implement application domain-specific context and behaviors using the programming features captured in the extension. Such extensibility to third party applications can broaden the scope of the database of information that the digital assistant may use to answer questions and perform actions for the user.
US 9369410 B2 teaches the invention concerns a method of operating a chatbot to engage in a conversation with a correspondent the method comprises building a profile having plural profile variables for the correspondent; and during the conversation with the correspondent; selecting a node in the conversation data structure for processing based on the one or more profile variables, and processing the node to follow a conversation path based on the node's coded instructions and/or relationship with other nodes. In another aspect, the method comprises the steps of attempting to match the conversation data structure of the chatbot; if a matched node is found, selecting the matched node for processing; but if a matched node is not found, selecting a node for processing using a fuzzy search, or using a default procedure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GOLAM MAHMUD whose telephone number is (571)270-0385. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8.00-5.00pm.
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, Umar Cheema can be reached at 5712703037. 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.
/GOLAM MAHMUD/Examiner, Art Unit 2458