DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1 – 20 are pending.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 28 August 2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the Examiner.
EXAMINER’S COMMENT
The claims of this application were subject to double patenting rejections over patented U.S. 12,094,471 B2, U.S. 11,830,499 B2, U.S. 11,289,096 B2, U.S. 10,504,521 B1, and U.S. 9,679,568 B1. The Examiner discussed with Attorney KRUEGER Brett on Friday Wednesday 17 July 2026 to inform him of this. The Applicant filed a terminal disclaimer to address this on 20 July 2026. The terminal disclaimer was approved also on 20 July 2026.
As a result of this, the Examiner does not present a non-statutory double patenting rejection over the claims of the co-pending application and the U.S. patents mentioned above.
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 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Independent claims 1 and 11 recite the limitations of receiving a query that comprises a question from a user at a dialogue system, outputting a first answer by the system to answer the user’s question, receiving a feedback from the user where the user indicates a dissatisfaction with the system’s response, and then having the system output a second answer from the system that answers the question with the second question including indication that the second answer is a follow-up to the question that corrects the first answer.
Nothing in the claims preclude them from being performed in the human mind. The entire process involves data gathering, data presentation and data analysis. The process can be conducted as having a human receive a query from a user, the human provides a first answer to the user, the user gives the human negative feedback that indicates the user is dissatisfied with the provided answer, and then, the human gives a second answer to the user’s first question, the human further stating that the second answer is a follow-up that corrects the first answer. The claims hereby recite a mental process.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application as the claims simple teach of gathering data through receiving the user’s question present in a query as well as receiving a user’s feedback that indicates dissatisfaction; presenting data based on the outputting the first answer and outputting the second answer that is a follow-up to correct the first answer; and also analysing data by determining that the user’s feedback indicates dissatisfaction requiring the outputting of a second answer. The mentioned data processing hardware and the memory hardware are recited in generic terms.
The invention is not tied to any particular defining structure and simply provides instructions to apply the judicial exception. The technique can be performed by a generic computer system, which would be presented as a tool to implement the abstract idea (classifiable as automation of the mental process steps). The Specification in [0027] provides a computer, being suitable to read upon the system required to perform the functions of the claims. The recited data processing hardware and the memory hardware are recited in such a way that they serve as additional elements utilised for performing the abstract idea but are not yet sufficient to amount to significantly more than the mentioned judicial exception. This judicial exception is recited at a high level of generality that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. The provided data processing hardware and memory hardware are simply provided as tools used to implement the abstract idea, thereby just being tools of implementation. The claims do not provide any additional detail. The claims therefore do not include additional elements that would be sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the invention is not tied to a practical application. The claims provide techniques that amount to no more than mere instructions that apply the judicial exception which can be performed by a generic device. Merely mentioning the data processing hardware and the memory hardware amount to no more than general-purpose hardware used as tools to implement the abstract idea and do not provide any particular application other than applying them for the purpose of implementing a judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic device cannot provide an inventive concept. Claims 1 and 11 are not eligible.
Claims 2 and 12 provide teaching for receiving another query from the user that comprises the same question, and providing a third answer to the user that answers the question. A human can receive another query from the user as the same initial question, and the human provides the user with a third answer answering the question. This does not integrate any practical application nor does it provide any additional element sufficient to amount to more than the mentioned judicial exception.
Claims 3 and 13 provide teaching for the third answer being different from the first answer. A human may provide a third answer that is different from the first answer. This does not integrate any practical application nor does it provide any additional element sufficient to amount to more than the mentioned judicial exception.
Claims 4 and 14 provide teaching for the second answer being the same as the third answer. A human may provide a second answer at a second point in time, which is the same as a third answer at a third point in time. This does not integrate any practical application nor does it provide any additional element sufficient to amount to more than the mentioned judicial exception.
Claims 5 and 15 provide teaching for receiving the user query as audio information captured by a microphone such that it is a query spoken by the user, and providing the first answer to the user by outputting it using a speaker of the computing device. A human may receive the user’s query as captured by a microphone, and the human may present the first answer to the user by outputting the answer through a speaker. This does not integrate any practical application nor does it provide any additional element sufficient to amount to more than the mentioned judicial exception.
Claims 6 and 16 provide teaching for performing speech-to-text conversion on the audio information. A human may listen to a speech and transcribe into text, the uttered speech. This does not integrate any practical application nor does it provide any additional element sufficient to amount to more than the mentioned judicial exception.
Claims 7 and 17 provide that the data processing hardware reside on the computing device. This is simply an indication of a feature of the data processing hardware, present as a generic computer device being applied to perform the judicial exception. This does not integrate any practical application nor does it provide any additional element sufficient to amount to more than the mentioned judicial exception.
Claims 8 and 18 provide that the data processing hardware reside on a remote system in communication with the computing device. This is simply an indication of a feature of the data processing hardware, present as a generic computer device that communicates with another computer device, being applied to perform the judicial exception. This does not integrate any practical application nor does it provide any additional element sufficient to amount to more than the mentioned judicial exception.
Claims 9 and 19 provide that the computing device comprises a mobile device. This is simply an indication of a feature of the computing device comprising a mobile device, which is present as a generic computer device being applied to perform the judicial exception. This does not integrate any practical application nor does it provide any additional element sufficient to amount to more than the mentioned judicial exception.
Claims 10 and 20 provide teaching for receiving the feedback from the user in the form of receiving a voice utterance uttered by the user. The human may listen to feedback uttered as speech by the user. This does not integrate any practical application nor does it provide any additional element sufficient to amount to more than the mentioned judicial exception.
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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gupta et al. (US 2009/0070113 A1: hereafter — Gupta) in view of Huerta et al. (US 2006/0247913 A1: hereafter — Huerta).
For claim 1, Gupta discloses a computer-implemented method when executed on data processing hardware causes the data processing hardware to perform operations (Gupta: [0027] — multi-processor and microprocessor-based system) comprising:
receiving a query from a user, the query comprising a question directed toward a dialog system (Gupta: [0010] — receiving a customer’s audible voice request (as the user query) to an interactive spoken dialogue system; [0068] — a user poses a question to the system);
providing, as output from a computing device, a first answer from the dialog system that answers the question (Gupta: [0047] — providing a suitable predefined answer to the user’s query);
receiving feedback from the user indicating dissatisfaction with the first answer provided from the dialog system (Gupta: [0068] — the user provides feedback to the system after the system has played an answer to the user’s query).
The reference of Gupta provides teaching for a situation whereby a user poses a question to a dialogue system and the dialogue system responds with an answer.
This reference however differs from the claimed invention in that the claimed invention further provides teaching for receiving feedback that indicates dissatisfaction from the user, and the system then responding with a second answer, while indicating it is a follow-up to the question that corrects the first answer.
The reference of Huerta is now introduced to teach this as:
receiving feedback from the user indicating dissatisfaction with the first answer provided from the dialog system (Huerta: [0049] — after the system gives a response, the user utters ‘Actually, I wanted a book by William Shakespeare’ (this being feedback provided by the user that indicates a dissatisfaction with the system response)); and
based on the received feedback indicating dissatisfaction with the first answer, providing, as output from the computing device, a second answer from the dialog system that answers the question, the second answer comprising an indication that the second answer is a follow-up answer to the question that corrects the first answer (Huerta: [0049] — after the system gives a response, the user utters ‘Actually, I wanted a book by William Shakespeare’ (this being feedback provided by the user that indicates a dissatisfaction with the system response), and the system provides a correction as ‘My mistake. What book by William Shakespeare are you looking for?’ (this being a follow-up answer to the user that indicates its attempt to correct the previous system response)).
The reference of Gupta provides teaching for a situation whereby a user poses a question to a dialogue system and the dialogue system responds with an answer. This reference however differs from the claimed invention in that the claimed invention further provides teaching for the system receiving feedback from the user that indicates dissatisfaction with the system’s first answer, to then have the system provide a second answer that is a follow-up answer to the question and corrects the first answer. This is however not new to the art as the reference of Huerta is seen to teach above.
Hence, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in art would have found it obvious to improve upon the teaching of Gupta which engages in dialogue with a user by responding to the user’s query, by incorporating the known technique of Huerta which applies user feedback indicating dissatisfaction to present the user with a corrected second response that acknowledges the previous response and continues the conversation, as taught by Huerta, to thereby come up with the claimed invention. The combination of both prior art elements would have provided the predictable result of presenting a user with a seemingly natural conversation that accounts for correcting misunderstanding errors encountered in speech. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385,1395-97 (2007).
For claim 5, claim 1 is incorporated and the combination of Gupta in view of Huerta discloses the method of claim 1, wherein:
receiving the query from the user comprises receiving audio information captured by a microphone of the computing device, the audio information corresponding to the query spoken by the user (Gupta: [0010] — the customer provides an audible voice request (indicating the capturing of a user’s spoken query audio information); [0041] — speech input;
Huera: [0020] — speech input through a microphone); and
providing the first answer to the user comprises providing the first answer for output using a speaker of the computing device (Huerta: [0020] — speech output from the device through a speaker).
For claim 6, claim 5 is incorporated and the combination of Gupta in view of Huerta discloses the method, wherein the operations further comprise performing speech-to-text conversion on the audio information (Gupta: [0031] — performing automatic speech recognition; [0043] — user utterances are transformed into text).
For claim 7, claim 5 is incorporated and the combination of Gupta in view of Huerta discloses the method, wherein the data processing hardware resides on the computing device (Gupta: [0027] — the embodiments being performed by local processing devices).
For claim 8, claim 5 is incorporated and the combination of Gupta in view of Huerta discloses the method, wherein the data processing hardware resides on a remote system in communication with the computing device (Gupta: [0027] — the embodiments being performed by remote processing devices).
For claim 9, claim 1 is incorporated and the combination of Gupta in view of Huerta discloses
the method, wherein the computing device comprises a mobile device (Gupta: [0027] — embodiments of the invention being implemented as hand-held devices (mobile devices)).
For claim 10, claim 1 is incorporated and the combination of Gupta in view of Huerta discloses
the method, wherein receiving feedback from the user comprises receiving a voice utterance uttered by the user (Huerta: [0020] — receiving speech signal from a microphone; [0035] — the feedback such as “no,” “I meant,” “that’s not right” are received as speech).
As for claim 11, system claim 11 and method claim 1 are related as apparatus and the method of using same, with each claimed element’s function corresponding to the claimed method step. Gupta in [0027] provides a multiprocessor system and a microprocessor-based system, as well as local and remote memory storage devices suitable to read upon the claimed invention. Accordingly, claim 11 is similarly rejected under the same rationale as applied above with respect to method claim 1.
As for claim 15, system claim 15 and method claim 5 are related as apparatus and the method of using same, with each claimed element’s function corresponding to the claimed method step. Accordingly, claim 15 is similarly rejected under the same rationale as applied above with respect to method claim 5.
As for claim 16, system claim 16 and method claim 6 are related as apparatus and the method of using same, with each claimed element’s function corresponding to the claimed method step. Accordingly, claim 16 is similarly rejected under the same rationale as applied above with respect to method claim 6.
As for claim 17, system claim 17 and method claim 7 are related as apparatus and the method of using same, with each claimed element’s function corresponding to the claimed method step. Accordingly, claim 17 is similarly rejected under the same rationale as applied above with respect to method claim 7.
As for claim 18, system claim 18 and method claim 8 are related as apparatus and the method of using same, with each claimed element’s function corresponding to the claimed method step. Accordingly, claim 18 is similarly rejected under the same rationale as applied above with respect to method claim 8.
As for claim 19, system claim 19 and method claim 9 are related as apparatus and the method of using same, with each claimed element’s function corresponding to the claimed method step. Accordingly, claim 19 is similarly rejected under the same rationale as applied above with respect to method claim 9.
As for claim 20, system claim 20 and method claim 10 are related as apparatus and the method of using same, with each claimed element’s function corresponding to the claimed method step. Accordingly, claim 20 is similarly rejected under the same rationale as applied above with respect to method claim 10.
Claims 2, 3, 12 and 13 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gupta (US 2009/0070113 A1) in view of Huerta (US 2006/0247913 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 11, further in view of Cramer (US 8,117,197 B1).
For claim 2, claim 1 is incorporated but the combination of Gupta in view of Huerta fails to disclose the limitations of this claim, for which the reference of Cramer is now introduced to teach as
the method, wherein the operations further comprise:
receiving another query from the user, the query comprising the same question directed toward the dialog system (Cramer: FIG. 2B, 2C — the same search term from FIG. 2B is provided again in FIG. 2C and the search results are different having been reranked (indicating the receipt of another query from the user, wherein the query is the same query as the first query), Col 5 lines 58 – 66 — a user provides the same query gain after an initial feedback regarding the first results); and
providing a third answer to the user that answers to the question (Cramer: FIG. 2C, Col 5 lines 58 – 66 — after providing the same query a second time, the system provides new results that have been reranked, such that a different answer (taken as the third answer) is provided at the top position).
The combination of Gupta in view of Huerta provides teaching for a dialogue system receiving a query from a user whereby the user provides feedback indicating dissatisfaction with the system’s result. The teaching of this combination however differs from the claimed invention in that the claimed invention further provides teaching that another query having the same initial question gets received from the user, and a third answer is provided that answers that question. This however isn’t new to the art as the reference of Cramer is seen to teach above.
Hence, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in art would have found it obvious to improve upon the response delivery of the system as taught by the combination of Gupta in view of Huerta which receives a query from a user and has a user provide feedback indicating dissatisfaction based on the query result, by incorporating the known technique of Cramer which receives the same query from the user at another time and provides a different response/answer, to thereby come up with the claimed invention. The combination of both prior art elements would have provided the predictable result of a dialogue system able to deliver responses to queries, in such a way that the confidence level associated with dismissed responses get reranked wo have lower confidences, and the system is then set to present the user with answers/responses with higher confidences that the user might be more agreeable with, increasing the chances of a user continuing with the system dialogue. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385,1395-97 (2007).
For claim 3, claim 2 is incorporated and the combination of Gupta in view of Huerta further in view of Cramer discloses the method, wherein the third answer is different than the first answer (Cramer: FIG. 2B, 2C — the same search term from FIG. 2B is provided again in FIG. 2C and the search results are different having been reranked (indicating the receipt of another query from the user, wherein the query is the same query as the first query)).
As for claim 12, system claim 12 and method claim 2 are related as apparatus and the method of using same, with each claimed element’s function corresponding to the claimed method step. Accordingly, claim 12 is similarly rejected under the same rationale as applied above with respect to method claim 2.
As for claim 13, system claim 13 and method claim 3 are related as apparatus and the method of using same, with each claimed element’s function corresponding to the claimed method step. Accordingly, claim 13 is similarly rejected under the same rationale as applied above with respect to method claim 3.
Claims 4 and 14 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gupta (US 2009/0070113 A1) in view of Huerta (US 2006/0247913 A1) further in view of Cramer (US 8,117,197 B1) as applied to claims 2 and 12, and further in view of Pan et al. (US 2010/0332499 A1: hereafter — Pan).
For claim 4, claim 2 is incorporated but the combination of Gupta in view of Huerta further in view of Cramer fails to disclose the limitation of this claim, for which the reference of Pan is now incorporated to teach as:
the method, wherein the second answer and the third answer are the same (Pan: [0019] — a question may be asked in two different ways and the same answer that was previously provided gets provided again at the second time the question was asked in the different form).
The combination of Gupta in view of Huerta further in view of Cramer provides teaching for the dialogue system providing a second answer and a third answer, but differs from the claimed invention in that the claimed invention now provides that the second and third answers are the same. This isn’t new to the art as the reference of Pan is seen to teach above.
Hence, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in art would have found it obvious to make use of the known technique that is provided by Pan which at two different cases, provides the same answer to a question presented in different forms, into improving upon the teaching of the combination of Gupta in view of Huerta further in view of Cramer which teaches of a dialogue system which can provide a second answer as well as a third answer, to thereby come up with the claimed invention. The combination of both prior art elements would have provided the predictable result of a dialogue system which delivers accurate and unchanging answers in situations that the queries require responses that are factual, so that the system results can be trusted. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385,1395-97 (2007).
As for claim 14, system claim 14 and method claim 4 are related as apparatus and the method of using same, with each claimed element’s function corresponding to the claimed method step. Accordingly, claim 14 is similarly rejected under the same rationale as applied above with respect to method claim 4.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure.
Rajagopal (US 2012/0005218 A1) provides teaching for a system whereby users can vote on whether they like a posted question and/or answers [0043].
Apacible et al. (US 2012/0005219 A1) provides teaching for a system that ranks query results based on a user satisfaction measurement module [0030], [0072].
Rossides (US 2009/0083254 A1) provides teaching for a system for an answer being influenced or changed when the current answer gets replaced by a challenger answer [0117].
Weider et al. (US 2007/0050191 A1) provides teaching for an incorporation of the interactive natural language system into a mobile device [0012] and the capturing of a user’s question or query through speech input [0028].
Leitersdorf et al. (US 2011/0004588 A1) provides teaching for a situation whereby a user provides positive or negative feedback as saying ‘Yes/No,’ ‘Useful/Not Useful’ or through ‘Thumbs Up/Thumbs Down’ [0033].
Bierner et al. (US 20080215976 A1) provides teaching for a system able to determine when the user is frustrated, dissatisfied or having problems entering information in the electronic form, to then provide the user with proportional help responses [0043].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to OLUWADAMILOLA M. OGUNBIYI whose telephone number is (571)272-4708. The Examiner can normally be reached Monday – Thursday (8:00 AM – 5:30 PM Eastern Standard Time).
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, PARAS D. SHAH can be reached at (571) 270-1650. 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.
/OLUWADAMILOLA M OGUNBIYI/Examiner, Art Unit 2653
Prosecution Insights