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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: #240, 250, 260, 270 in figure 2, #845 in figure 8, #2908, 2910, 2926 in figure 29. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show figures 12e and 12f as described in the specification in paragraph [0032]. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Parasnis (US 11,809,688 B1).
Regarding claim 1 Parasnis teaches One or more processors comprising processing circuitry (col. 25 lines 8-10, col. 26 lines 49-51) to:
receive, by one or more action servers (col. 22 lines 25-28) that handle one or more overlays of visual content supplementing one or more conversations with an interactive agent, (Figs 10, 13-20, 32, #1606 in fig 16, col. 10 lines 49-59, col. 13 lines 57-64, col. 22 lines 9-15) one or more events representing one or more visual content actions categorized using an interaction categorization schema (figs 9, 32, col. 9 lines 25-39 – the described out-of-the box template options can be considered interaction categorization schema) and instructing one or more updates to the one or more overlays in one or more graphical user interfaces (GUIs) (figs 16 & 17, col. 13 lines 4-18, col. 22 lines 20-24);
generate, by the one or more action servers, one or more visual layouts representing the one or more updates specified by the one or more events (Fig 13-20, fig 9, col. 8 lines 33-48, col. 9 lines 25-39); and
cause presentation of a rendering of the one or more visual layouts within a scene (fig 8, 9, 12A, 13, 14, col. 9 lines 25-39).
Regarding claim 2, Parasnis teaches The one or more processors of claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is further to select one or more template visual layouts based at least on one or more blocks of content specified by the one or more events (figs. 9 & 37 #3704, col. 9 lines 25-39), and generating the one or more visual layouts based at least on populating one or more placeholders in the one or more template visual layouts with the content specified by the one or more events (figs. 9 & 10, col. 9 lines 40-52).
Regarding claim 3, Parasnis teaches The one or more processors of claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is further to translate the one or more events into one or more modular graphical user interface configurations specifying one or more blocks of content corresponding to one or more fields specified by the one or more events (figs. 9 & 10, col. 8 lines 7-48, col. 9 lines 25-52).
Regarding claim 4, Parasnis teaches The one or more processors of claim 1, wherein the one or more events comprise one or more fields that identify a supported action type categorizing the one or more first visual content actions (fig. 9 & 10, col. 9 lines 25-52), a state of the one or more first visual content actions (fig. 4, 8, 9 & 13, col 5 line 61-col 6 line 6, col. 11 lines 39-63), and a representation of instructed visual content (fig. 9 & 12A, col 10 lines 25-35).
Regarding claims 5, Parasnis teaches The one or more processors of claim 1, wherein the one or more visual content actions comprise a visual information scene action that instructs visualization of information about a topic associated with the one or more conversations (figs 27, 34 #3414-3418, 37 #3706-3712, col. 19 lines 4-36, col. 29 lines 1-17).
Regarding claim 6, Parasnis teaches The one or more processors of claim 1, wherein the one or more visual content actions comprise a visual choice action that instructs visualization of one or more choices associated with the one or more conversations (fig 34 #3410, col. 24 lines 40-54 & lines 63-67).
Regarding claim 7, Parasnis teaches The one or more processors of claim 1, wherein the one or more visual content actions comprise a visual form action that instructs visualization of one or more form fields that accept one or more inputs associated with the one or more conversations (figs 27, 32 #3202, col. 22 lines 9-24, col 19 lines 4-36).
Regarding claim 8, Parasnis teaches The one or more processors of claim 1, wherein the one or more events comprise one or more fields that specify text generated using one or more large language models (fig. 13 col. 11 lines 28-38, col. 10 lines 16-24 – GPT-3 is an LLM).
Regarding claim 9, Parasnis teaches The one or more processors of claim 1, wherein the one or more events comprise one or more fields that instruct retrieval or generation of one or more images based at least on one or more natural language descriptions of the one or more images (figs 1, 14, 16, 34, 35, col. 3 lines 53 - col. 4 line 7, col. 11 lines 45-49, 53-54, col. 13 lines 11-18, col. 24 lines 21-26, col. 25 line 59- col. 26 line 5).
Regarding claim 10, Parasnis teaches The one or more processors of claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is further to instruct inclusion of the one or more visual layouts in a stack of the one or more overlays (Figs 9, 10 #1002, 13 #1304, 14, 16, col. 9 lines 41-45, col. 11 lines 39-44, col. 13 lines 11-18).
Regarding claim 11 Parasnis teaches the one or more processors of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are comprised in at least one of:
a system for performing conversational AI operations (fig. 32, col 19 lines 4-36);
a system implementing one or more language models (col. 10 lines 16-24, col. 19 lines 9-12);
a system implementing one or more large language models (LLMs) (col. 10 lines 16-24);
a system for generating synthetic data (col. 3 lines 46-52 – AI generated content is synthetic data);
a system for generating synthetic data using AI (col. 3 lines 46-52);
Regarding claim 12, Parasnis teaches A system comprising one or more processors (col. 25 lines 8-10, col. 26 lines 49-51) to generate, by one or more action servers (col. 22 lines 25-28) that handle one or more overlays of visual content supplementing one or more conversations with an interactive agent (Figs 10, 13-20, 32, #1606 in fig 16, col. 10 lines 49-59, col. 13 lines 57-64, col. 22 lines 9-15), one or more visual layouts representing one or more updates to the one or more overlays (figs 16 & 17, col. 13 lines 4-18, col. 22 lines 20-24) specified by one or more events that represent one or more visual content actions categorized using an interaction categorization schema (figs 9, 32, col. 9 lines 25-39 – the described out-of-the box template options can be considered interaction categorization schema).
Regarding claim 13, Parasnis teaches The system of claim 12, wherein the one or more processors are further to select one or more template visual layouts based at least on one or more blocks of content specified by the one or more events (figs. 9 & 37 #3704, col. 9 lines 25-39), and generating the one or more visual layouts based at least on populating one or more placeholders in the one or more template visual layouts with the content specified by the one or more events (figs. 9 & 10, col. 9 lines 40-52).
Regarding claim 14, Parasnis teaches The system of claim 12, wherein the one or more processors are further to translate the one or more events into one or more modular graphical user interface configurations specifying one or more blocks of content corresponding to one or more fields specified by the one or more events. (figs. 9 & 10, col. 8 lines 7-48, col. 9 lines 25-52).
Regarding claim 15, Parasnis teaches The system of claim 12, wherein the one or more events comprise one or more fields that identify a supported action type categorizing the one or more visual content actions (fig. 9 & 10, col. 9 lines 25-52), a state of the one or more first visual content actions (fig. 4, 8, 9 & 13, col 5 line 61-col 6 line 6, col. 11 lines 39-63), and a representation of instructed visual content (fig. 9 & 12A, col 10 lines 25-35).
Regarding claim 16, Parasnis teaches The system of claim 12, wherein the one or more visual content actions comprise a visual information scene action that instructs visualization of information about a topic associated with the one or more conversations. (figs 27, 34 #3414-3418, 37 #3706-3712, col. 19 lines 4-36, col. 29 lines 1-17).
Regarding claim 17, Parasnis teaches The system of claim 12, wherein the one or more visual content actions comprise a visual choice action that instructs visualization of one or more choices associated with the one or more conversations. (fig 34 #3410, col. 24 lines 40-54 & lines 63-67).
Regarding claim 18, Parasnis teaches The system of claim 12, wherein the system is comprised in at least one of:
a system for performing conversational AI operations (fig. 32, col 19 lines 4-36);
a system implementing one or more language models (col. 10 lines 16-24, col. 19 lines 9-12);
a system implementing one or more large language models (LLMs) (col. 10 lines 16-24);
a system for generating synthetic data (col. 3 lines 46-52 – AI generated content is synthetic data);
a system for generating synthetic data using AI (col. 3 lines 46-52);
Regarding claim 19, Parasnis teaches A method comprising:
receiving one or more events representing one or more visual content actions categorized using an interaction categorization schema (figs 9, 32, col. 9 lines 25-39 – the described out-of-the box template options can be considered interaction categorization schema) and instructing one or more updates to one or more overlays of visual content supplementing one or more conversations with an interactive agent (Figs 10, 13-20, 32, #1606 in fig 16, col. 10 lines 49-59, col. 13 lines 4-18, 57-64, col. 22 lines 9-24); and
translating the one or more events into one or more visual layouts representing the one or more updates specified by the one or more events (figs. 9 & 10, col. 8 lines 7-48, col. 9 lines 25-52).
Regarding claim 20, Parasnis teaches the method of claim 19, wherein the method is performed by at least one of:
a system for performing conversational AI operations (fig. 32, col 19 lines 4-36);
a system implementing one or more language models (col. 10 lines 16-24, col. 19 lines 9-12);
a system implementing one or more large language models (LLMs) (col. 10 lines 16-24);
a system for generating synthetic data (col. 3 lines 46-52 – AI generated content is synthetic data);
a system for generating synthetic data using AI (col. 3 lines 46-52);
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. F. Honold, F. Schüssel, M. Weber, F. Nothdurft, G. Bertrand and W. Minker, "Context Models for Adaptive Dialogs and Multimodal Interaction," 2013 9th International Conference on Intelligent Environments, Athens, Greece, 2013, pp. 57-64, doi: 10.1109/IE.2013.54.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Aidan W McCoy whose telephone number is (571)272-5935. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 AM-5:00 PM EST.
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, Tammy Goddard can be reached at (571)272-7773. 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.
/AIDAN W MCCOY/Examiner, Art Unit 2611
/TAMMY PAIGE GODDARD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2611
Prosecution Insights