DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Examiner’s Note
Claims of co pending applications 18/798,887, 18/798,909, 18/798,911, 18/798,896, 18/798,898, 18/798,904, 18/798,886, 18/798,907 and US Patent 12511810 are similar to the current claims, but are nonobvious at this time. However, if the claims become obvious due to amendments, a double patenting rejection will be given.
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 1-2, 4-6, 8-11, 13-15, 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) elements which under their broadest reasonable interpretation, are directed to mental processes. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application as explained below. The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as explained below.
Regarding Claim 1, the claim recites One or more processors comprising processing circuitry to:
receive, by an interpreter of an interactive agent platform, one or more representations of one or more detected user actions;
generate, based at least on the interpreter prompting one or more large language models (LLMs) and evaluating the one or more representations of the one or more detected user actions for one or more matches with one or more interrupted interaction flows, one or more representations of one or more responsive agent or scene actions; and
cause presentation of a rendering of the one or more responsive agent actions or the one or more responsive scene actions.
Claim Interpretation: Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the terms of the claim are
presumed to have their plain meaning consistent with the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2111.
Claim element a recites receiving a user input by computer components recited at a high level of generality. Aside from the recitation of generic computer components, nothing precludes this limitation from being performed in the mind
Claim element b recites generating an action based on evaluating a match between the user input and interrupted interaction flow. An interrupted interaction flow can be interpreted as a pause in a conversation.
Claim element c recites presenting the action
Additional elements recited are processor comprising processing circuitry, interpreter of an interactive agent platform, LLM.
Step 1: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim falls within any statutory
category. See MPEP 2106.03. The claim is directed to a machine, which falls within one of the statutory
categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A, Prong One: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a
judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04, subsection II, a claim “recites” a judicial exception
when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim. As discussed above, the broadest reasonable interpretation of limitations (a)-(c) is that those limitations fall within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because they cover concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2),subsection III.
Limitation (a) is directed to a mental step since the human mind can receive one or more representations of one or more detected user actions. Limitation (b) is also directed to a mental step as the human mind can come up with an action to take and the human mind can evaluate for a match between a user action and a pause in a conversation. Limitation (c) is directed to a mental step as a human can present an action through the use of pen and paper. Hence, these steps can be performed by a human, using “observation, evaluation, judgment, [and] opinion,” because they involve making determinations and identifications, which are mental tasks humans routinely do,' ” and thus can practically be performed in the human mind, In re Killian, 45 F.4th 1373, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2022). Therefore, these limitations are considered together as an abstract idea for further analysis. (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Step 2A, Prong Two: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole
integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception or whether the
claim is “directed to” the judicial exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether
there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating
those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole
integrates the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d). Additional elements recited are processor comprising processing circuitry, interpreter of an interactive agent platform, LLM.
The processor comprising processing circuitry, interpreter of an interactive agent platform and LLM disclosed provide nothing more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). MPEP2106.05(f) provides the following considerations for determining whether a claim simply recites a judicial exception with the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer: (1) whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e. the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished; (2) whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process; and (3) the particularity or generality of the application of the judicial exception. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO), and the claim is directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A: YES).
Step 2B: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole amount to
significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of
additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
At Step 2A the additional elements recited are processor comprising processing circuitry, interpreter of an interactive agent platform, and LLM were found to represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer using generic computer components. Mere instructions to “apply” the abstract ideas, cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The analysis under Step 2A, Prong Two is carried through to Step 2B. Further, one or more images of physical environment captured using the one or more cameras was found to be insignificant extra solution activity. However, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05, subsection I.A. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. (Step 2B: NO).
As such Claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claims 10 and 19, analysis analogous to that of Claim 1 is applicable
Claims 2,11 adds the limitations that the evaluation step further involves generating a natural language description using an LLM. A human mind can generate a natural language description of code and use that to evaluate for a match. The LLM is a generic computer component recited at a high level of generality.
Regarding Claims 4 and 13, analysis analogous to that of Claim 2 is applicable.
Regarding Claims 5,14, under the BRI of specified instruction line, a human mind that discern an instruction that represent an intent from a paused conversation and use that to evaluate for a match.
Regarding Claims 6,15, analysis analogous to that of Claim 2 is applicable
Regarding Claims 8,17, as mentioned prior in the analysis for Claim 2, the human mind can evaluate a match using a natural language description. Additionally, the human mind can come up with an instruction based on a pause in a conversation.
Regarding Claims 9, 18,20 analysis analogous to that of Claim 1 is applicable.
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) 1,3-5,9-10,12-14,18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Vuskovic(US PGPub 20250069595).
Regarding Claim 1, Vuskovic teaches one or more processors comprising processing circuitry to:
receive, by an interpreter of an interactive agent platform, one or more representations of one or more detected user actions(Upon application 170 submitting the user's request, runtime manager 102 can be configured to identify one or more playbooks that can be executed in connection with responding to the received request [0020]);
generate, based at least on the interpreter prompting one or more large language models (LLMs)( A playbook may also format instructions as either natural-language instructions or programmatic instructions, and may use the format of the instructions to control whether the instruction is to be evaluated, or otherwise executed, by the runtime manager or the LLM) and evaluating the one or more representations of the one or more detected user actions for one or more matches(Upon receiving this input via the runtime manager, the LLM may determine that the condition for instruction 316e is satisfied[0048]) with one or more interrupted interaction flows(instructions 301-306 that are to be executed in order[0038]), one or more representations of one or more responsive agent(LLM is instructed to generate a response [0040]) or scene actions;
and cause presentation of a rendering of the one or more responsive agent actions or the one or more responsive scene actions(“show the balance for each account and ask which account the customer wants to pay”. In executing this instruction, the LLM may provide an output to the runtime manager that includes a particular message to be transmitted to the customer[0038], Figure 1 170 “Text, Voice, GUI”).
Claim 10 is directed to a system claim with similar limitations to Claim 1 and is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 19 is directed to a method claim with similar limitations to Claim 1 and is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding Claim 3, Vuskovic teaches the evaluating comprises matching(conditional requirements for one or more instructions[0027]) the one or more representations of the one or more detected user actions with one or more event specifiers(Figure 2208 Plugin ) of the one or more interrupted interaction flows(instruction to call a plugin[0031]), at least one of one or more parameters or one or more parameter values of the one or more event specifiers generated based at least on the interpreter prompting the one or more LLMs(The call to the plugin may include a particular conversational context to set parameters of the plugin call. Data received from the plugin may be provided to the LLM, including by dynamically updating one or more parameters identified within playbook 200[0031]).
Claim 12 is directed to a system claim with similar limitations to Claim 3 and is rejected under the same rationale
Regarding Claim 4, Vuskovic teaches the prompting of the one or more LLMs comprises the interpreter prompting the one or more LLMs to determine whether the one or more representations of the one or more detected user actions match one or more natural language descriptions(subset of the instructions are in a natural language format[0003], Within instruction 312a, a natural-language description is provided[0039]) of the one or more interrupted interaction flows.
Claim 13 is directed to a system claim with similar limitations to Claim 4 and is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding Claim 5, Vuskovic further teaches the prompting of the one or more LLMs comprises the interpreter prompting the one or more LLMs to determine(LLM may determine that the condition for instruction 316e is satisfied[0048]) whether the one or more representations of the one or more detected user actions match(Instruction 316e is a conditional instruction in which it is determined whether the customer has asked about bill details[0045]) one or more specified instruction lines of one or more interrupted interaction flows that represent one or more target user intents(LLM may call for the runtime manager to execute the “BillExplanation” playbook[0048]).
Claim 14 is directed to a system claim with similar limitations to Claim 5 and is rejected under the same rationale
Regarding Claim 9, Vuskovic discloses 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 Al operations(a system for controlling conversational artificial intelligence[0008]);
a system implementing one or more language models(In addition, as discussed herein, one or more LLMs may be running multiple playbooks in connection with performing an overall task [0020]);
a system implementing one or more large language models (LLMs)( In addition, as discussed herein, one or more LLMs may be running multiple playbooks in connection with performing an overall task [0020]);
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 Al;
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 18 is directed to a system claim with similar limitations to Claim 9 and is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 20 is directed to a method claim with similar limitations to Claim 9 and is rejected under the same rationale.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 2,11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vuskovic(US PGPub 20250069595) in view of Brown(US PGPub 20240281600).
Regarding Claim 2, Vuskovic does not teach the evaluating comprises matching the one or more representations of the one or more detected user actions with one or more natural language descriptions of the one or more interrupted interaction flows, the one or more natural language descriptions generated based at least on the interpreter prompting the one or more LLMs.
However, Brown teaches the evaluating comprises matching the one or more representations of the one or more detected user actions with one or more natural language descriptions of the one or more interrupted interaction flows, the one or more natural language descriptions generated based at least on the interpreter prompting the one or more LLMs(This review can be aided by an English description of the code generated by an LLM [0219]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the idea of a natural language description of code with the teachings of Vuskovic because it would aid in human review(Brown 0219).
Claim 11 is directed to a system claim with similar limitations to Claim 2 and is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim(s) 6,15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vuskovic(US PGPub 20250069595) in view of Weider(US PGPub 20110231182).
Regarding Claim 6, Vuskovic teaches the prompting of the one or more LLMs(playbook 300 may include additional instructions in the form of a prompt that specifies the goal to be achieved by the execution of playbook[0037]) and one or more natural language descriptions of one or more interrupted interaction flows(subset of the instructions are in a natural language format[Vuskovic 0003], Within instruction 312a, a natural-language description is provided[0039]).
Vuskovic does not teach determining whether one or more unmatched events that represent the one or more detected user actions semantically match.
However, Weider teaches determining whether one or more unmatched events that represent the one or more detected user actions semantically match(According to another embodiment of the invention, 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[0120]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the idea of a semantic match with the teachings of Vuskovic because it would broaden the match(Weider 0120).
Claim 15 is directed to a system claim with similar limitations to Claim 6 and is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim(s) 7-8,16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vuskovic(US PGPub 20250069595) in view of Davelaar(US PGPub 20250095808).
Regarding Claim 7, Vuskovic teaches responsive agent flows implementing one or more responsive agent intents in response to determining that the one or more detected user actions do not match any the one or more interrupted interaction flows(For example, if it is determined that a particular user account does not exist, conditional action 207c could cause the LLM to indicate this failure with the runtime manager, and provide a prompt that seeks confirmation from the user that the correct account number has been provided [0030]).
Vuskovic does not teach the prompting of the one or more LLMs comprises the interpreter prompting the one or more LLMs to generate one or more instruction lines of one or more responsive agent flows.
However, Davelaar does teach the prompting of the one or more LLMs comprises the interpreter prompting the one or more LLMs to generate one or more instruction lines of one or more responsive agent flows(The second step of the two-step approach is for the LLM 616 to generate an execution plan 610 based on the input prompt 627 [0169]. The execution plan 610 includes an ordered list of agents and/or actions that can be used and/or executed to sufficiently respond to the request such as the additional query 638. For example, and as illustrated in FIG. 6, the execution plan 610 can be an ordered list that includes a first agent 642a capable of executing a first action 644a via an associated asset[0173]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the idea of generating instructions lines with the teachings of Vuskovic because it allows the LLM 616 to capture complex patterns and dependencies in the input prompt(Davelaar 0170).
Claim 16 is directed to a system claim with similar limitations to Claim 7 and is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding Claim 8, Vuskovic as modified by Davelaar teaches the prompting of the one or more LLMs comprises the interpreter prompting the one or more LLMs to generate one or more instruction lines of the one or more interrupted interaction flows(The second step of the two-step approach is for the LLM 616 to generate an execution plan 610 based on the input prompt 627 [0169]. The execution plan 610 includes an ordered list of agents and/or actions that can be used and/or executed to sufficiently respond to the request such as the additional query 638. For example, and as illustrated in FIG. 6, the execution plan 610 can be an ordered list that includes a first agent 642a capable of executing a first action 644a via an associated asset[0173]) based on at least one of one or more specified flow names or one or more natural language descriptions of the one or more interrupted interaction flows(subset of the instructions are in a natural language format[Vuskovic 0003], Within instruction 312a, a natural-language description is provided[0039]).
Claim 17 is directed to a system claim with similar limitations to Claim 8 and is rejected under the same rationale.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARJUN R SWAMY whose telephone number is (571)272-9763. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8-5.
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, Hai Phan can be reached at (571) 272-6338. 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.
/ARJUN SWAMY/Examiner, Art Unit 2654
/HAI PHAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2654
Prosecution Insights