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 .
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Response to Amendments and Arguments
Regarding an objection to the Abstract and Title, applicant presented a new Abstract and a new Title. The objection has been withdrawn.
Regarding an obviousness type double patenting rejection, applicant filed a terminal disclaimer. The obviousness type double patenting rejection has been withdrawn.
Regarding a rejection under 35 U.S.C. §112(b), the examiner noticed that many terms in the newly presented claims have an issue of lacking antecedent basis. The examiner mentioned some examples of claimed terms that have insufficient antecedent basis. Applicant only correct the antecedent basis issues in the mentioned examples. The examiner suggests applicant reviewing all claim limitations to correct similar issues.
Regarding rejection to claims under 35 U.S.C. §102, applicant amended independent claims 1, 19 and 20 by deleting one alternative limitation (recited using “OR”) and adding a limitation related to outputting a voice response using a pre-recorded human voice.
Applicant argued that the cited reference (Henderson) uses a text-to-speech model to generate speech outputs. There is no mention or suggestion of retrieving a cached audio recording of a human voice or using the audio recording (Remarks, page 11).
The added feature is very common / well known. For example, Gelfenbeyn (US Pat. 10,546,067, in an IDS submitted on 08/09/2024) discloses a dialog system could output voice messages by using text-to-speech technique or using pre-recorded audio message (Gelfenbeyn, Col. 10, lines 17-23). In the following rejection, the examiner combines the previously cited reference (co-authored by the inventors) with Gelfenbeyn reference (submitted by the applicant in an IDS) to reject the amended independent claims under 35 U.S.C. §103. Applicant’s arguments regarding the previously anticipation rejection under §102 are moot.
Applicant further argued (Remarks, pages 11-12) that:
PNG
media_image1.png
226
1290
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In response, the examiner notices that the argued limitation is related to updating a dialog flow configuration. Henderson shows a graphical user interface on a computer for updating a dialog flow configuration (See Fig. 12).
Fig. 12 illustrates different dialog states (e.g., greeting, ask for booking, saying goodbye). Each state is configured to connect one or more next states (Fig. 12, #104). All these configures / setting are stored in a computer. Henderson explains ([0500-0506]) that a developer could customize / configurate a dialog flow by changing parameters. Henderson meets the argued limitation “updating or maintaining a configuration of the dialogue platform for the next user input based at least in part on information corresponding to configuration settings stored in the next state, thereby tailoring the configuration of the dialogue platform for the next user input.”
Applicant’s argument regarding “updating or maintaining a configuration of a dialogue platform for… ” is not persuasive. The Henderson reference (a previously inventor’s published application) discloses this argument limitation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 21, 23-28, 30, 35, and 37-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Henderson et al. (US PG Pub. 2020/0152184, submitted in an IDS, referred to as Henderson) in view of Gelfenbeyn et al. (US Pat. 10,546,067, submitted in an IDS, referred to as Gelfenbeyn).
A claimed invention defined by each of independent claims 21, 39 and 40 is related to configurating a spoken dialog system (claimed “adjusting or maintaining a configuration of the dialogue system”). The claims recite limitations related to using a user interface (claimed: “second input data through a second interface”). The claim limitations also include a user interacting with the dialog system (claimed: “first input data through a first user interface”).
Henderson was a published patent application co-invented by several of instant inventors. Henderson was assigned to the same assignee (PolyAI, Limited). Henderson discloses a user could have a conversation with a spoken dialog system. The dialog system identifies user’s goal from a user’s voice request, fills slots ([0041-0042], [00127-00129], Fig. 2a, Fig. 11). Henderson further discloses a user (or a developer) could customize parameters of the dialogue system using a second user interface ([0500-0517], Fig. 12 is an illustration that a user could modify various parameters of a spoken dialogue system on a graphical user interface, Fig. 12 is replicated below for reference).
PNG
media_image2.png
570
768
media_image2.png
Greyscale
A reference submitted by the application (Gelfenbeyn) discloses customizing a dialog system. In particular, Gelfenbeyn discloses outputting an audio message by using either text-to-speech or using pre-recorded audio message (Gelfenbeyn, Col. 10, lines 17-23).
Regarding claims 21,39 and 40, Henderson discloses a system, a method and a non-transitory computer readable medium (Henderson, [0117-0118], Fig. 2(a)), comprising:
a first input configured to obtain first input data relating to speech or text provided by a user through a first interface (Henderson, [0143], a conversation between a user and a dialog system, see Fig. 11);
a first output configured to provide first output data relating to an audio signal associated with a determined dialogue act through the first interface, the first input data and the first output data forming at least part of a dialogue between the dialogue system and the user (Henderson, [0143], [0200], a conversation between a user and a dialog system, see dialog examples shown in Fig. 11 or Fig. 15);
one or more processors, configured to:
receive second input data through a second interface (Henderson, [0504-0506], Fig. 12, a developer could customize parameters / settings of the dialog system);
store information specifying one or more configuration settings based on the second input data, wherein at least a portion of the information corresponds to a state from a stored plurality of states (Henderson, [0068-0071], [0229], [0509], storing dialog states and transitions), wherein at least some of the stored plurality of states comprise information specifying a dialogue act (Henderson, [0223], dialogue acts) and at least some of the stored plurality of states comprise transition information specifying a transition to another state (Henderson, [0229], dialogue transitions from one dialog state to another dialog states), the transitions defining one or more dialogue pathways and the states defining points in the dialogue pathway (Henderson, [0059], tracking dialog pathway); and
perform a dialogue method using a dialogue platform, the dialogue method (Henderso, Fig. 11) comprising:
determining dialogue information from the first input data (Henderson, [0039], [0042], obtain user’s dialogue goals and intents);
determining a dialogue act based on the determined dialogue information, wherein determining the dialogue act comprises selecting a next state from the stored plurality of states stored in the dialogue management module, wherein selecting the next state comprises selecting a state which is specified by the transition information in a current state or selecting a state which is specified by a rule in a first set of one or more rules (Henderson, [0058-0062], [0067-0071], [00230], dialog control flow, select states; [0229], transition to different states; Fig. 16, determining dialogue acts based on user’s intents; [0442], dialogues state transitions);
converting a text signal specified by the determined dialogue act to an audio signal (Henderson, [0032], Fig. 2(a) using speech synthesis to generate audio outputs), the converting comprising:
updating or maintaining a configuration of the dialogue platform for the next user input based at least in part on information corresponding to configuration settings stored in the next state, thereby tailoring the configuration of the dialogue platform for the next user input (Henderson, [0219], modifying dialogue preference settings, [0504-0508], configure dialog parameters, customizing dialogue flow).
Applicant amended independent claims by removing using text-to-speech technique and adding using a cached audio recording of a human voice.
Henderson discloses using text-to-speech to generate audio output ([0032]. Fig. 2(a), output speech using speech synthesis), but does not explicitly discloses using pre-recorded human voice.
Gelfenbeyn discloses a dialog system can use either text-to-speech or pre-recorded human voice (Gelfenbeyn, Col. 10, lines 17-23).
Both Henderson and Gelfenbeyn are dealing with spoken dialogue management and dialogue configuration. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Henderson’s teaching with Gelfenbeyn’s teaching to generate audio message using pre-record audio message. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification because using pre-recorded message is easier to use available pre-recorded audio message than using text-to-speech.
Regarding claim 23, Henderson in view of Gelfenbeyn further discloses the one or more processors are further configured to include a state in the stored plurality of states based on the second input data (Henderson, [00504-0505], Fig. 12, a user configures a dialog flow with different dialog states on a graphical user interface).
Regarding claim 24, Henderson in view of Gelfenbeyn further discloses the dialogue platform comprises a language module configured to determine the dialogue information from the first input data (Henderson, [0140-0141], a spoken dialog understanding module to determine user’s goals or intent from a user’s input).
Regarding claim 25, Henderson in view of Gelfenbeyn further discloses a first state of the stored plurality of states comprises stored information specifying a first configuration setting based on the second input data which is a configuration setting of the language module (Henderson, [00504-0056], Fig. 12, a dialogue configuration interface to allow user to change dialogue configurations; Fig. 16 and Fig. 17 show examples dialog flow when a user requests information).
Regarding claim 26, Henderson in view of Gelfenbeyn further discloses the language module is configured to determine a value corresponding to one or more slots (Henderson, [0042-0046]), wherein the first state specifies a dialogue act corresponding to a request for a value for a first slot and wherein the first configuration setting specifies the slot (Henderson, [0042-0046], determining values of different slots; Fig. 13 shows determining slot values when analyzing a user’s input).
Regarding claim 27, Henderson in view of Gelfenbeyn further discloses the language module comprises a plurality of models, wherein the first configuration setting specifies a model from the plurality of models to be used to determine the dialogue information for the next user input (Henderson, [0174-0175], [00504], Fig. 12).
Regarding claim 28, Henderson in view of Gelfenbeyn further discloses the dialogue platform comprises a speech recognition module configured to convert input speech data to text data (Henderson, [0132-0133]) and wherein a first state of the stored plurality of states comprises stored information specifying a first configuration setting based on the second input data which is a configuration setting of the speech recognition module ([0219], [0500], a user Fig. 12, a user interface to configure various parameters of a dialogue system).
Regarding claim 30, Henderson in view of Gelfenbeyn further discloses the dialogue platform comprises a language module, and wherein the language module is configured to determine an intent (Henderson, [0168], natural language understanding model determines user’s intent), wherein the second input data comprises information specifying one or more intents, and wherein the language module comprises an intent classifier that is trained based on the information specifying the one or more intents (Henderson, [0040], [0053], [0076]).
Regarding claim 35, Henderson in view of Gelfenbeyn further discloses the one or more processors are further configured to display a visual representation of the stored plurality of states through the second interface (Henderson, Fig. 12, a user interface to configure a dialog flow with dialog states).
Regarding claim 37, Henderson in view of Gelfenbeyn further discloses the second input data is received as an edit to the displayed representation of the stored plurality of states (Henderson, [0059-0060], [0128], Fig. 12).
Regarding claim 38, Henderson in view of Gelfenbeyn further discloses the speech recognition module is configured to detect a language of the user input (Henderson, [0134], understanding a spoken language, [0138], the dialogue system operates with wide array of languages).
Claims 22, 29 and 31-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Henderson in view of Gelfenbeyn and further in view of Marx et al (US Pat. 6,173,266, submitted by applicant in an IDS, referred to as Marx).
Regarding claim 22, Henderson discloses a spoken dialogue system with various models related to spoken dialogue system (Henderson, Fig. 2(a)). Henderson does not explicitly mention “a telephony module”. Marx discloses developing an interactive speech application for telephony application (Marx, Fig. 1 and Fig. 4). Mars further discloses a graphical user interface to configure dialog parameters such as a dialogue state transition flow (Marx, Fig. 7).
The combined teaching discloses: the dialogue platform comprises the first interface comprising a telephony module (Marx, Fig. 4, #460) configured to process the first input data (Marx, Fig. 4, #450; Henderson, [0031]), a speech recognition module configured to convert input speech data to text data (Marx, Col. 3, Lines 60-65; Henderson, [0132]), a language module configured to determine the dialogue information (Marx, Col. 3, lines 1-5, using language model to determine call flow, Henderson, [0413], dialog goal), a voice composer module configured to generate first output data relating to speech from the determined dialogue act (Marx, Col. 8, lines 52-60, Fig. 5; Henderson, Fig. 11) and an orchestrator module configured to provide data to and receive data from the telephony module (Marx, ), the speech recognition module (Marx, Col. 7, lines 30-40; Henderson, [0132]), the dialogue management module and the voice composer module (Marx, Col. 7, lines 5-30; Fig. 4; dialogue management; Henderson, [0135], [0199], Fig. 2a).
Both Henderson in view of Gelfenbeyn and Marx are dealing with spoken dialogue management and dialogue configuration. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to combine Henderson’s teaching with Marx’s teaching to use the dialogue system in a telephony application by including telephony module. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification to save time (Marx, Col. 3, lines 5-25). In addition, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately. “A combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.” KSR, 550 U.S. ___, 82 USPQ2d at 1395 (2007). One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 29, Henderson in view of Gelfenbeyn, and further Marx further discloses the first configuration setting specifies one or more of: a first time period corresponding to a length of time in which a user speaks before an interjection (Marx, Fig. 16, a user defines time-out values after system prompt), a second time period corresponding to a length of time to wait for a user input (Marx, Fig. 16, a user specific time out values during dialog), a list of expected words or phrases, OR a speech recognition model from a set of two or more speech recognition models in the speech recognition module to be used for the next user input
Regarding claim 31, Henderson in view of Gelfenbeyn and Marx further discloses the first interface comprises a telephony module (Marx, Fig. 4, #460), and wherein a first state of the stored plurality of states comprises stored information specifying a first configuration setting based on the second input data which is a configuration setting of the telephony module (Marx, Fig. 7, a user interface for configuring dialog state flow and transition in a telephony application; Herderson, Fig. 12).
Regarding claim 32, Henderson in view of Gelfenbeyn and Marx further discloses the first configuration setting of the telephony module comprises an indication of an expected channel for a user input (Marx, Col. 5, line 55-65; configure telephony channels; Col. 7, lines 48-52, telephone call channels).
Regarding claim 33, Henderson in view of Gelfenbeyn and Marx further discloses: a first state of the stored plurality of states comprises stored information specifying a first configuration setting based on the second input data which is a configuration setting of the orchestrator module (Henderson, Fig. 12, Marx, Fig. 7, Fig. 10-13, a graphical user interface that allow user to modify / change parameters of different modules of a dialogue system).
Regarding claim 34, Henderson in view of Gelfenbeyn and Marx further disclose:the first configuration setting specifies whether user input received during a time period when the dialogue management module is determining a dialogue act is processed by the dialogue management module (Marx, Fig. 16, a user could specific time out values before the system outputs re-prompts).
Claim 36 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Henderson in view of Gelfenbeyn and further in view of Sathyanarayana et al. (US PG Pub. 2018/0143967, referred to as Sathyanarayana).
Regarding claim 36, Henderson in view of Gelfenbeyn discloses receive third input data and store information specifying one or more configuration settings based on the third input data (Henderson, [0352], Fig. 12). Henderson discloses providing a user interface to configure a dialogue system using a graphical user interface. Henderson does not discloses using “a command line user interface”
Sathyanarayana discloses configuring a spoken dialogue system using graphical user interface or using a command line user interface (Sathyanarayana, [0025], [0075], [0085], using graphical user interface or command line user interface to configure a dialogue system; Fig. 3-5, show modifying different settings / configurations using GUI).
Both Henderson and Sathyanarayana are dealing with designing / configuring a dialog system. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to combine Henderson’s teaching with Sathyanarayana’s teaching to provide a command line user interface. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification because using a command line interface is faster.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jialong He, whose telephone number is (571) 270-5359. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday, 8:00AM – 4:30PM, EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Pierre Desir can be reached on (571) 272-7799. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JIALONG HE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2659
Prosecution Insights