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 .
This office correspondence is in response to the application filed on August 19, 2024.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spiegel et al. (US Publication 2024/0249318) hereafter Spiegel, in view of Brewer et al. (US publication 2024/0356871) hereafter Brewer.
As per claim 1, Spiegel discloses a method for operating a chatbot, comprising: storing, using a database, a plurality of visual media and metadata corresponding to each of the plurality of visual media (paragraphs 0115, 0119-120: chatbot utilizes all of the collected media information and extracted metadata); receiving verbal input from a user (paragraphs 0220-221, 0238: visual media with chat input from user); determining a visual media query as a function of the verbal input (paragraphs 0047, 0052, 0203: prepares response to a query); assigning confidence scores as a function of the visual media query and the metadata corresponding to each of the plurality of visual media (paragraphs 0091, 0126, 0131: ranking criteria scores); determining a visual media selection using the confidence scores (paragraphs 0126, 0131, 0201); and outputting the visual media selection and a corresponding verbal response (paragraphs 0141, 0220, 0224: chat based interaction with verbal commands). Although, Spiegel discloses determining user intent from chatbot interaction, he does not expressly disclose receiving verbal input, assigning confidence scores as a function of the visual media query and the metadata, and determining a visual media selection using the confidence scores.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Brewer elaborately discloses the claimed limitation of receiving verbal input, assigning confidence scores as a function of the visual media query and the metadata, and determining a visual media selection using the confidence scores (paragraphs 0076, 0082, 0162: chatbot interactive session with weights the keyworks and/or concepts based on an importance score).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Brewers’ teaching with Spiegel. One would be motivated to assign score for each image or videos and metadata of those media to further modify/adjust weight as necessary for filtering and to response to user interaction accurately, thus enhancing interactive platform.
As per claim 2, Spiegel discloses the method wherein the plurality of visual media includes images and videos (paragraphs 0047, 0065, 0115).
As per claim 3, Spiegel discloses the method wherein the metadata includes real number vectors (paragraphs 0047, 0065, 0115).
As per claim 4, Spiegel discloses the method wherein the visual media query includes a real number vector embedded with the verbal input (paragraphs 0122-123, 0143).
As per claim 5, Spiegel discloses the method comprising generating a verbal response to the user, and wherein the real number vector is also embedded with the verbal response (paragraphs 0049, 0143, 0247).
As per claim 6, Spiegel discloses the method wherein the assigning the confidence scores include comparing the real number vector embedded with the verbal input and the real number vectors of the metadata (paragraphs 0091, 0126, 0131).
As per claim 7, Spiegel discloses the method wherein the comparing includes determining a cosine similarity between the real number vector embedded with the verbal input and each real number vector of the metadata (paragraphs 0119-120, 0240-244).
As per claim 8, Spiegel discloses the method wherein assigning the confidence scores includes training an ensemble model (paragraphs 0047, 0065-66).
As per claim 9, Spiegel discloses the method comprising retraining the ensemble model in response to receiving a second verbal input from the user, determining a chat duration, or determining a user response time (paragraphs 0065, 0073, 0099, 0102).
As per claim 10, Spiegel discloses the method wherein outputting the visual media selection includes adjusting a text appearance characteristic as a function of the visual media selection (paragraphs 0043-46, 0126, 0131).
Claim 11 is an Independent claim with similar limitation but different in preamble and hence are rejected based on the rejection provided in claim 1.
Claims 12-20 are listed all the same elements of claims 2-10 respectively. Therefore, the supporting rationales of the rejection to claims 2-10 apply equally as well to claims 12-20, respectively.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FARZANA B HUQ whose telephone number is (571)270-3223. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 8:30-5:30 ET.
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, Emmanuel L Moise can be reached at 571-272-3865. 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.
/FARZANA B HUQ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2455