Response to an Amendment
This office action is a response to a communication made on 05/01/2026.
Claims 1-10, 12-17 and 19 are currently amended.
Claims 1-20 are pending for this application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/23/2026, 05/22/2026, 07/10/2026 and 07/10/2026 were filed before the mailing date of the final action on 07/14/2026. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks on page 15-18, filed 05/01/2026, with respect to claims 1-20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of 35 USC § 101 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 12 and 19 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks on page 13-15, filed 05/01/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 12 and 19 under 102(a)(2) have been considered and regarding the amended feature of “track one or more interrupted sequence of instructions that represent one or more human-machine interactions, that are interrupted during execution, and that specify one or more target events to resume execution, check one or more incoming interaction events against the one or more target events to identify one or more matching sequences of instructions of the one or more interrupted sequences of instructions” are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Aggarwal et al. (US2024/0055000A1) in view Marzinzik et al. (US 2024/0086148).
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) 1-2, 11-13 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aggarwal et al. (US2024/0055000A1), hereinafter “Aggarwal” in view Marzinzik et al. (US 2024/0086148), hereinafter “Marzinzik”. Marzinzik cited in applicant IDS filed 12/01/2025.
With respect to claim 1, Aggarwal discloses one or more processors comprising processing circuitry to:
track one or more interrupted sequence of instructions that represent one or more human-machine interactions, that are interrupted during execution, and that specify one or more target events to resume execution (¶0008, teaches the automated assistant can create a list of such events and qualify such events to determine (i.e. track) whether an interaction between the user and the automated assistant should be interrupted in response to the event occurring, ¶0010, teaches In order to resume completion of an interaction that has been previously interrupted, the automated assistant can provide a suggestion that identifies one or more interactions that have been previously interrupted. The user can then select an interaction to be completed, invoke the automated assistant to initialize completion of the interaction, and/or provide any other suitable input for causing an automated assistant to perform a particular action);
check one or more incoming interaction events against the one or more target events to identify one or more matching sequences of instructions of the one or more interrupted sequences of instructions (¶0008, teaches the automated assistant can create a list of such events and qualify such events to determine whether an interaction between the user and the automated assistant should be interrupted in response to the event occurring, ¶0010, teaches In order to resume completion of an interaction that has been previously interrupted, the automated assistant can provide a suggestion that identifies one or more interactions that have been previously interrupted. The user can then select an interaction to be completed, invoke the automated assistant to initialize completion of the interaction, and/or provide any other suitable input for causing an automated assistant to perform a particular action, ¶0013, teaches compare the context to any contextual data stored with any incomplete actions, and provide suggestions when the context matches any contextual data. In this way, when the user begins to drive again, the user can be reminded of their previously incomplete action (e.g., “Last time you drove you were composing a message to Lisa. Would you like to send a message to Lisa? as sequence of instructions”).
trigger, based at least on resuming the execution of the one or more matching sequences of instructions (¶0013, teaches the automated assistant can store information corresponding to the partially composed message, along with contextual information, and use the contextual information to generate a reminder that can be subsequently triggered during similar contexts. For instance, the next time the user begins driving, the automated assistant can acknowledge that the user is driving, compare the context to any contextual data stored with any incomplete actions, and provide suggestions when the context matches any contextual data. In this way, when the user begins to drive again, the user can be reminded of their previously incomplete action (e.g., “Last time you drove you were composing a message to Lisa. Would you like to send a message to Lisa? as sequence of instructions”).
However, Aggarwal remain silent on presentation of a rendering of one or more responsive agent or scene actions specified by the one or more matching sequences of instructions.
Marzinzik discloses presentation of a rendering of one or more responsive agent or scene actions specified by the one or more matching sequences of instructions (¶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, ¶0276, teaches the computer system may identify one or more call sequence events (i.e. sequence of instructions) in each conversation of the plurality of completed conversations. The call sequence events for each conversation may represent predefined events that occurred during the corresponding conversation).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Aggarwal’s compare the context to any contextual data stored with any incomplete actions with presentation of a rendering of one or more responsive agent or scene actions specified by the one or more matching sequences of instructions of Marzinzik, in order to preserve interaction context, and providing a seamless, efficient and immersive user experience (Marzinzik).
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, Aggarwal in view of 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 sequences of instructions based at least on activating one or more instruction lines of one or more initial sequences of instructions and interrupting the one or more instruction lines at one or more corresponding event matchers (Aggarwal, ¶0010, teaches In order to resume completion of an interaction that has been previously interrupted, the automated assistant can provide a suggestion that identifies one or more interactions that have been previously interrupted. The user can then select an interaction to be completed, invoke the automated assistant to initialize completion of the interaction, and/or provide any other suitable input for causing an automated assistant to perform a particular action, ¶0013, teaches compare the context to any contextual data stored with any incomplete actions, and provide suggestions when the context matches any contextual data. In this way, when the user begins to drive again, the user can be reminded of their previously incomplete action (e.g., “Last time you drove you were composing a message to Lisa. Would you like to send a message to Lisa? as sequence of instructions”, 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, Aggarwal in view of 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(s) 3-10 and 14-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aggarwal in view of Marzinzik, and further 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, Aggarwal in view of Marzinzik discloses the one or more processors of claim 1, Aggarwal teaches ¶0013, teaches compare the context to any contextual data stored with any incomplete actions, and provide suggestions when the context matches any contextual data. In this way, when the user begins to drive again, the user can be reminded of their previously incomplete action (e.g., “Last time you drove you were composing a message to Lisa. Would you like to send a message to Lisa? as sequence of instructions”. However, Aggarwal in view of Marzinzik remain silent on wherein the processing circuitry is further to advance the one or more matching sequences of instructions 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 sequences of instructions.
Weider discloses wherein the processing circuitry is further to advance the one or more matching sequences of instructions 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 sequences of instructions (¶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, ¶0211, teaches a complex command can result in more atomic commands being sent to multiple devices, perhaps in a sequence (i.e. sequence of instructions). The sequence and nature of subsequent commands may depend on the previous commands, results of pervious commands, device settings and other measurements. ).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Aggarwal’s interrupted action in view of Marzinzik’s system with advance the one or more matching sequences of instructions 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 sequences of instructions of Weider, in order to determine which flows should advance first or together (Weider).
With respect to claims 4 and 15, Aggarwal in view of Marzinzik discloses the one or more processors of claim 1, Aggarwal teaches ¶0013, teaches compare the context to any contextual data stored with any incomplete actions, and provide suggestions when the context matches any contextual data. In this way, when the user begins to drive again, the user can be reminded of their previously incomplete action (e.g., “Last time you drove you were composing a message to Lisa. Would you like to send a message to Lisa? as sequence of instructions”. However, Aggarwal in view of Marzinzik remain silent on wherein the processing circuitry is further to check for the one or more matching sequences of instructions based at least on testing one or more event matchers specified by the one or more interrupted sequences of instructions 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 sequences of instructions based at least on testing one or more event matchers specified by the one or more interrupted sequences of instructions 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, ¶0211, teaches a complex command can result in more atomic commands being sent to multiple devices, perhaps in a sequence (i.e. sequence of instructions). The sequence and nature of subsequent commands may depend on the previous commands, results of pervious commands, device settings and other measurements).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Aggarwal’s interrupted action in view of Marzinzik’s system with check for the one or more matching sequences of instructions based at least on testing one or more event matchers specified by the one or more interrupted sequences of instructions 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, Aggarwal in view of Marzinzik discloses the one or more processors of claim 1, however, Aggarwal in view of Marzinzik remain silent on wherein the processing circuitry is further to advance, in response to identifying the one or more matching sequences of instructions that match the one or more incoming interaction events, one or more instruction lines of the one or more matching sequences of instructions.
Weider discloses wherein the processing circuitry is further to advance, in response to identifying the one or more matching sequences of instructions that match the one or more incoming interaction events, one or more instruction lines of the one or more matching sequences of instructions (¶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, ¶0211, teaches a complex command can result in more atomic commands being sent to multiple devices, perhaps in a sequence (i.e. sequence of instructions). The sequence and nature of subsequent commands may depend on the previous commands, results of pervious commands, device settings and other measurements).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Aggarwal’s in view of Marzinzik’s system with advance, in response to identifying the one or more matching sequences of instructions that match the one or more incoming interaction events, one or more instruction lines of the one or more matching sequences of instructions 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, Aggarwal in view of Marzinzik discloses the one or more processors of claim 1, however, Aggarwal in view of Marzinzik remain silent on wherein the processing circuitry is further to determine, in response to determining that a plurality of matching sequences of instructions 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 sequences of instructions 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, ¶0211, teaches a complex command can result in more atomic commands being sent to multiple devices, perhaps in a sequence (i.e. sequence of instructions). The sequence and nature of subsequent commands may depend on the previous commands, results of pervious commands, device settings and other measurements).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Aggarwal’s in view of Marzinzik’s system with determine, in response to determining that a plurality of matching sequences of instructions 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, Aggarwal in view of Marzinzik discloses the one or more processors of claim 1, however, Aggarwal in view of 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 sequences of instructions 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 sequences of instructions.
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 sequences of instructions 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 sequences of instructions (¶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, ¶0211, teaches a complex command can result in more atomic commands being sent to multiple devices, perhaps in a sequence (i.e. sequence of instructions). The sequence and nature of subsequent commands may depend on the previous commands, results of pervious commands, device settings and other measurements).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Aggarwal’s in view of Marzinzik’s system with trigger, based at least on applying conflict resolution in response to determining that a plurality of matching sequences of instructions 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 sequences of instructions 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, Aggarwal in view of Marzinzik discloses the one or more processors of claim 1, however, Aggarwal in view of 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 sequences of instructions of the one or more interrupted sequences of instructions 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 sequences of instructions.
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 sequences of instructions of the one or more interrupted sequences of instructions 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 sequences of instructions (¶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, ¶0211, teaches a complex command can result in more atomic commands being sent to multiple devices, perhaps in a sequence (i.e. sequence of instructions). The sequence and nature of subsequent commands may depend on the previous commands, results of pervious commands, device settings and other measurements).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Aggarwal’s in view of Marzinzik’s system with trigger, based at least on applying conflict resolution in response to determining that a plurality of matching sequences of instructions of the one or more interrupted sequences of instructions 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 sequences of instructions 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, Aggarwal in view of Marzinzik discloses the one or more processors of claim 1, however Aggarwal in view of Marzinzik remain silent on wherein the processing circuitry is further to apply, in response to determining that there are no matching sequences of instructions of the one or more interrupted sequences of instructions 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 sequences of instructions of the one or more interrupted sequences of instructions 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, ¶0211, teaches a complex command can result in more atomic commands being sent to multiple devices, perhaps in a sequence (i.e. sequence of instructions). The sequence and nature of subsequent commands may depend on the previous commands, results of pervious commands, device settings and other measurements).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Aggarwal’s in view of Marzinzik’s system with apply, in response to determining that there are no matching sequences of instructions of the one or more interrupted sequences of instructions 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, Aggarwal in view of Marzinzik discloses the one or more processors of claim 1, however, Aggarwal in view of Marzinzik remain silent on wherein the processing circuitry is further to, in response to advancing the one or more matching sequences of instructions identifying one or more completed or aborted flows of the one or more matching sequences of instructions, stop a set of the one or more interrupted sequences of instructions 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 sequences of instructions identifying one or more completed or aborted flows of the one or more matching sequences of instructions, stop a set of the one or more interrupted sequences of instructions 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, ¶0211, teaches a complex command can result in more atomic commands being sent to multiple devices, perhaps in a sequence (i.e. sequence of instructions). The sequence and nature of subsequent commands may depend on the previous commands, results of pervious commands, device settings and other measurements).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Aggarwal’s in view of Marzinzik’s system with in response to advancing the one or more matching sequences of instructions identifying one or more completed or aborted flows of the one or more matching sequences of instructions, stop a set of the one or more interrupted sequences of instructions 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
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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.
/G.M/Examiner, Art Unit 2458
/UMAR CHEEMA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2458
Prosecution Insights