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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Drawings
The drawings filed on: 09/03/2024 are accepted.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “at least one processing unit causing the electronic device to perform ..” in claim 17.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/25/2025 is being considered by the examiner.
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 2, 3, 8 and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis Claim 2
101 Analysis Step 2A, Prong One
Claim 2 recites the following limitations (of which bolded limitations constitute a ‘mental process’ that covers performance of the limitations in the human mind).
“receiving a launch request or a debugging request for the target application; presenting a settings window in response to a target role in the set of preset roles being associated with a vacant interactive object; and configuring, via the settings window, a target interactive object corresponding to the target role”
As a note, steps fall within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because they cover concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III).
With respect to the particular limitations that were bolded above, these steps can be practically performed in the human mind using observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion. For example the particular limitations encompass: making a judgment to correspond a target interactive object to a target role.
101 Analysis Step 2A, Prong Two
With regards to the following additional elements of
“receiving a launch request or a debugging request for the target application” , “ …. via the settings window”, these elements are considered to encompass adding an insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception. More specifically , the insignificant extra solution activity encompasses ‘Mere Data Gathering’ (see MPEP 2106.05(g): “iv. Obtaining information about transactions using the Internet to verify credit card transactions, CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011)”. The courts have identified these types of limitations as insufficient to integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
“presenting a settings window in response to a target role in the set of preset roles being associated with a vacant interactive object” these elements are considered to encompass adding an insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception. More specifically , the insignificant extra solution activity encompasses ‘selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated’ (see MPEP 2106.05(g): “iii. Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016)”). The courts have identified these types of limitations as insufficient to integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
The claim depends upon and incorporates ‘presenting’ elements (select and display type limitations) of claim 1, which as explained above, are considered to encompass adding an insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception. The courts have identified these types of limitations as insufficient to integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
101 Analysis Step 2B:
The claim does not amount to significantly more than the recited exception
With regards to the following additional elements of:
“receiving a launch request or a debugging request for the target application” , “ …. via the settings window”, as explained above, these elements are considered to encompass adding an insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception. The courts have identified these types of limitations as insufficient to qualify as ‘significantly more’ when recited in a claim with a judicial exception.
“presenting a settings window in response to a target role in the set of preset roles being associated with a vacant interactive object”, as explained above, these elements are considered to encompass adding an insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception. The courts have identified these types of limitations as insufficient to qualify as ‘significantly more’ when recited in a claim with a judicial exception.
The claim depends upon and incorporates ‘presenting’ elements (select and display type limitations) of claim 1, which as explained above, are considered to encompass adding an insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception. The courts have identified these types of limitations as insufficient to qualify as ‘significantly more’ when recited in a claim with a judicial exception.
101 analysis for claim 3
With regards to claim 3, which depends on claim 2, it does not resolve the deficiencies of claim 2 and further recites aspects of ‘configuring’ (which has been explained in the rejection of claim 2 to be directed to a judicial exception). Thus, it is rejected under similar rationale as claim 2 above.
101 Analysis for claim 8
101 Analysis Step 2A, Prong One
Claim 8 recites the following limitations (of which bolded limitations constitute a ‘mental process’ that covers performance of the limitations in the human mind).
“in response to the session interface being associated with a user object, adjusting an interaction mode of a message input control in the session interface based on an interaction state of the user object in the target interactive scene, the interaction state indicating whether the user object is determined as an interactive object to provide an interactive message.”
With respect to the particular limitations that were bolded above, these steps can be practically performed in the human mind using observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion. For example the particular limitations encompass: 1) making a judgment that a session interface is associated with a user object, and 2) making a judgement to adjust a value associated with an ‘interaction mode’ (based upon evaluating the user object as an interactive object’).
101 Analysis Step 2A, Prong Two
The claim depends upon and incorporates ‘presenting’ elements (select and display type limitations) of claim 1, which are considered to encompass adding an insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception. The courts have identified these types of limitations as insufficient to integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
101 Analysis Step 2B
The claim depends upon and incorporates ‘presenting’ elements (select and display type limitations) of claim 1, which as explained above, are considered to encompass adding an insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception. The courts have identified these types of limitations as insufficient to qualify as ‘significantly more’ when recited in a claim with a judicial exception.
101 Analysis for claim 11
Claim 11 recites the following limitations (of which bolded limitations constitute a ‘mental process’ that covers performance of the limitations in the human mind).
“wherein the target application is created based on configuration information, the configuration information comprises the interaction control information and role setting information about a target interactive scene, wherein the interaction control information is used to construct the first processing entity, and the role setting information indicates the set of preset roles”
With respect to the particular limitations that were bolded above, these steps can be practically performed in the human mind using observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion. For example the particular limitations encompass: 1) making a judgment to include as configuration information the control information and role setting information.
101 Analysis Step 2A, Prong Two
The claim depends upon and incorporates ‘presenting’ elements (select and display type limitations) of claim 1, which are considered to encompass adding an insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception. The courts have identified these types of limitations as insufficient to integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
The claim also includes additional element of “wherein the target application is created”, which is considered to encompass adding an insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception. More specifically , the insignificant extra solution activity encompasses ‘selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated’ (see MPEP 2106.05(g). The courts have identified these types of limitations as insufficient to integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
101 Analysis Step 2B
The claim depends upon and incorporates ‘presenting’ elements (select and display type limitations) of claim 1, which are considered to encompass adding an insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception; which have been identified by the courts as insufficient to qualify as ‘significantly more’ when recited in a claim with a judicial exception.
The claim also includes additional element of “wherein the target application is created”, which is considered to encompass adding an insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception. More specifically , the insignificant extra solution activity encompasses ‘selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated’ (see MPEP 2106.05(g); which have been identified by the courts as insufficient to qualify as ‘significantly more’ when recited in a claim with a judicial exception.
101 rejection for claim 12
With regards to claim 12, it does not resolve the statutory deficiencies of claim 11, and only further recites additional judicial exception concerning ‘configuration information’. Thus, claim 12 is rejected under similar rationale as claim 11.
101 Rejection for claim 13
With regards to claim 13, it recites the following limitations (of which bolded limitations constitute a ‘mental process’ that covers performance of the limitations in the human mind).
“in response to a received termination request, triggering at least one processing entity associated with the target application to stop generating an interactive message.”
As a note, steps fall within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because they cover concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III).
With respect to the particular limitations that were bolded above, these steps can be practically performed in the human mind using observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion. For example the particular limitations encompass: evaluating a termination request and making a judgment to ‘stop’ producing/generating an interactive message.
101 Analysis Step 2A, Prong Two
With regards to the following additional elements of “triggering at least one processing entity associated with the target application to stop generating an interactive message”, these additional elements are considered to encompass a generic computer (and its components/functions ) that is used as a tool to perform generic computer functions/operations such that they amount to no more than mere instructions/operations to apply the exception using the generic computer. Applying or using the judicial exception on a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea has been identified by the courts as insufficient to integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
The claim depends upon and incorporates ‘presenting’ elements (select and display type limitations) of claim 1, which are considered to encompass adding an insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception; which have been identified by the courts as insufficient to integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
101 Analysis Step 2B
101 Analysis Step 2A, Prong Two
With regards to the following additional elements of “triggering at least one processing entity associated with the target application to stop generating an interactive message”, these additional elements are considered to encompass a generic computer (and its components/functions ) that is used as a tool to perform generic computer functions/operations such that they amount to no more than mere instructions/operations to apply the exception using the generic computer. Applying or using the judicial exception on a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea have been identified by the courts as insufficient to qualify as ‘significantly more’ when recited in a claim with a judicial exception.
The claim depends upon and incorporates ‘presenting’ elements (select and display type limitations) of claim 1, which are considered to encompass adding an insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception; which have been identified by the courts as insufficient to qualify as ‘significantly more’ when recited in a claim with a judicial exception.
101 Rejection for claim 14
With regards to claim 14, it does not resolve the statutory deficiencies of claim 13, and further recites additional elements that are considered applying the judicial exception on a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, which have been identified by the courts as insufficient to integrate a judicial exception into a practical application and also insufficient to qualify as ‘significantly more’ when recited in a claim with a judicial exception.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because:
With regards to claim 20, it recites a “computer readable storage medium”, for which the specification describes in an open ended manner, and thus could encompass transitory /signal media. Thus the claim covers signals per se/carrier waves, which is not statutory. See MPEP 2106 below:
“ In Mentor Graphics, the court interpreted the claims in light of the specification, which expressly defined the medium as encompassing "any data storage device" including random-access memory and carrier waves. Although random-access memory and magnetic tape are statutory media, carrier waves are not because they are signals similar to the transitory, propagating signals held to be non-statutory in Nuijten. 851 F.3d at 1294, 112 USPQ2d at 1133 (citing In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 84 USPQ2d 1495 (Fed. Cir. 2007)). Accordingly, because the BRI of the claims covered both subject matter that falls within a statutory category (the random-access memory), as well as subject matter that does not (the carrier waves), the claims as a whole were not to a statutory category and thus failed the first criterion for eligibility.”
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.
Claim(s) 1, 6, 8-10, 17 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goslin et al (US Application: US 2021/0075747, published: Mar. 11, 2021, filed: Sep. 9, 2019) in view of O’Sullivan et al (US Application: US 2008/0082609, published: Apr. 3, 2008, filed: Oct. 3, 2006).
With regards to claim 1, Goslin et al teaches an interaction method (Fig. 1: a computer implemented method using at least one of a storage, and at least one processor to execute instructions is implemented), comprising:
presenting a session interface of a target application, the session interface being associated with a plurality of interactive objects participating in a target interactive scene, the plurality of interactive objects corresponding to a set of preset roles in the target interactive scene, and the plurality of interactive objects comprising a processing entity or a user object (Fig. 3, paragraph 0015 and 0067: a chat session displays a plurality of interactive AI chat icons/objects corresponding to a chat scene. The plurality of icons each associated with a chatbot entity having a persona/role to carry out a function and can provide a response (interpreted as a type of interactive message) to a chat message (also interpreted as a type of interactive message) from a user ); and
presenting a set of interactive messages from the plurality of interactive objects in the session interface, (Fig. 3, Fig 5, paragraph 0069 and 0079: a sequence of messages from the chatbots can be displayed in the chat interface ).
However does not expressly teach … a sequence of the set of interactive messages being determined by a first processing entity based on interactive control information associated with the target interactive scene…
Yet O’Sullivan et al teaches … a sequence of the set of interactive messages being determined by a first processing entity based on interactive control information associated with the target interactive scene… (Fig. 1, Fig. 2, Abstract, paragraphs 0009 and 0010: a sequence of messages are determined through a conversation application that includes an ability to oversee the messaging to control with entities/participants can or cannot impact the sequence of messages being displayed in a chat scene).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have modified Goslin et al’s ability to present a set of interactive messages using a conversation/chat application, such that the chat application includes an interface that can process an ability to sequence display of the messages, as taught by O’Sullivan et al. The combination would have allowed Goslin et al to have implemented a way to control/moderate a conversation to reduce confusion and disorganization for participants of a conversation (O’Sullivan, paragraph 0008).
With regards to claim 6. The method of Claim 1, Goslin et al teaches wherein presenting a set of interactive messages from the plurality of interactive objects in the session interface comprises: determining a first interactive object associated with the session interface; and displaying, in the session interface, a first set of interactive messages associated with the first interactive object, the first set of interactive messages comprising an interactive message sent to the first interactive object and/or an interactive message sent by the first interactive object (Fig. 3, paragraphs 0069 and 0079: an AI chatbot object /icon is depicted in the interface and messages /responses can come from (sent by) the AI agent).
With regards to claim 8. The method of Claim 1, Goslin et al teaches further comprising: in response to the session interface being associated with a user object, adjusting an interaction mode of a message input control in the session interface based on an interaction state of the user object in the target interactive scene, the interaction state indicating whether the user object is determined as an interactive object to provide an interactive message (Fig. 3, Fig. 5, 0065. the chat interface session is associated with a user activating one or more chat bots associated with their corresponding icons (and thus user activated chatbots are also considered user objects that are considered as selected (‘indicated’) as user selected/activated object). This selected/activated object/chatbot as explained in paragraph 0040 takes in context data that includes user message(s)/communications).
With regards to claim 9. The method of Claim 8, Goslin et al teaches wherein adjusting the interaction mode of the message input control in the session interface comprises: in response to the interaction state indicating that the user object is an interactive object to provide an interactive message, enabling the message input control so as to obtain an interactive message of the user object; or in response to the interactive state indicating that the user object is not an interactive object to provide an interactive message, disabling or stopping displaying the message input control, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 8 (Fig. 3, Fig. 5, 0065. the chat interface session is associated with a user activating one or more chat bots associated with their corresponding icons (and thus user activated chatbots are also considered user objects that are considered as selected (‘indicated’) as user selected/activated object). This selected/activated object/chatbot as explained in paragraph 0040 takes in context data that includes user message(s)/communications), and is rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to claim 10. The method of Claim 1, Goslin et al wherein presenting the session interface of the target application comprises: presenting the session interface of the target application in response to a launch request or a debugging request for the target application (paragraph 0081: the session interface is presented).
With regards to claim 17, Goslin et al teaches an electronic device, comprising: at least one processing unit; and at least one memory coupled to the at least one processing unit and storing instructions executed by the at least one processing unit, the instructions, when executed by the at least one processing unit, causing the electronic device to perform an interaction method comprising: presenting a session interface of a target application, the session interface being associated with a plurality of interactive objects participating in a target interactive scene, the plurality of interactive objects corresponding to a set of preset roles in the target interactive scene, the plurality of interactive objects comprising a processing entity or a user object; and presenting a set of interactive messages from the plurality of interactive objects in the session interface, a sequence of the set of interactive messages being determined by a first processing entity based on interactive control information associated with the target interactive scene, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 1, and is rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to claim 20, Goslin et al teaches a computer-readable storage medium, storing a computer program thereon, the computer program, when executed by a processor, implementing an interaction method comprising: presenting a session interface of a target application, the session interface being associated with a plurality of interactive objects participating in a target interactive scene, the plurality of interactive objects corresponding to a set of preset roles in the target interactive scene, the plurality of interactive objects comprising a processing entity or a user object; and presenting a set of interactive messages from the plurality of interactive objects in the session interface, a sequence of the set of interactive messages being determined by a first processing entity based on interactive control information associated with the target interactive scene, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 1, and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim(s) 2-5, 11, 12, 18, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goslin et al (US Application: US 2021/0075747, published: Mar. 11, 2021, filed: Sep. 9, 2019) in view of O’Sullivan et al (US Application: US 2008/0082609, published: Apr. 3, 2008, filed: Oct. 3, 2006) in view of Vishnoi et al (US Application: US 2020/0342850, published: Oct. 29, 2020, filed: Apr. 23, 2020).
With regards to claim 2. The method of Claim 1, the combination of Goslin et al and O’Sullivan et al teaches further comprising: receiving a launch request or a debugging request for the target application (paragraph 0081: the session interface is presented); the set of preset roles (paragraph 0016: different personas are associated with objects/chatbots).
However the combination does not expressly teach … presenting a settings window in response to a target role in the set of preset roles being associated with a vacant interactive object; and configuring, via the settings window, a target interactive object corresponding to the target role.
Yet Vishnoi et al teaches … presenting a settings window in response to a target role in the set of preset roles being associated with a vacant interactive object (paragraph 0017, Abstract: a dabp interface/window can be launched to configure a register a skill/role for a skillbot/chatbot); and configuring, via the settings window, a target interactive object corresponding to the target role (paragraph 0017, Fig 4: a skill bot (target interactive object) is configured with a target skill/role such that it takes the user message (interpreted as an interactive message) and is configured to be invoked based on additional interactive information that contains an invocation name and respond accordingly based on invocation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have modified Goslin et al and O’Sullivan et al’s ability to implement a target application with user selected/activated interactive objects/chatbots (also consider user interactive objects) having preset roles/personas in a conversation session, such that the chatbot personas available in the conversation session could have been initially configured via settings with a desired target role/persona, as taught by Vishnoi et al. The combination would have enhanced a conversation session by enhancing chatbots to perform tasks based upon user messaging in the conversation session (Vishnoi et al, paragraph 0002).
With regards to claim 3. The method of Claim 2, the combination of Goslin et al, O’Sullivan et al and Vishnoi et al teaches wherein configuring the target interactive object corresponding to the target role comprises: configuring a current user object as the target interactive object corresponding to the target role; or configuring, based on a received configuration operation, a second processing entity as the target interactive object corresponding to the target role, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 2, Goslin et al, O’sullivan et al’s user selectable chatbots (user interactive objects) were modified with Vishnoi et al’s teaches to have been initially configured with a target role/persona), and is rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to claim 4. The method of Claim 1, Goslin et al , O’Sullivan et al and Vishnoi et al teaches wherein presenting a set of interactive messages from the plurality of interactive objects in the session interface comprises: presenting a first interactive message and interactive information corresponding to the first interactive message in the session interface, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 2 (the combination of Goslin et al , O’Sullivan et al and Vishnoi et al were explained to process a user’s message (interactive message) and one or more chatbots/skillbots are determined to correspond to the user’s message through invocation name (as the claimed ‘interactive information) such that the one or more chatbots/skillbots are invoked to respond to the user’s message (interactive message) ), and is rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to claim 5. The method of Claim 4, Goslin et al , O’Sullivan et al and Vishnoi et al teaches wherein the interactive information indicates at least one of: a first set of interactive objects to which the first interactive message is sent; a second set of interactive objects configured to respond to the first interactive message; or a response sequence of the second set of interactive objects for the first interactive message, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 2 (the combination of Goslin et al , O’Sullivan et al and Vishnoi et al were explained to process a user’s message (interactive message) and one or more chatbots/skillbots are determined to correspond to the user’s message through invocation name (as the claimed ‘interactive information) such that the one or more chatbots/skillbots are invoked to respond to the user’s message (interactive message) ), and is rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to claim 11. The method of Claim 1, Goslin et al , O’Sullivan et al and Vishnoi et al teaches wherein the target application is created based on configuration information, the configuration information comprises the interaction control information and role setting information about a target interactive scene, wherein the interaction control information is used to construct the first processing entity, and the role setting information indicates the set of preset roles, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 2 (Goslin et al and O’Sullivan et al’s ability to implement a target application containing interactive objects and user objects was explained to be modified (with the teachings of Vishnoi et al) to initialize user interactive objects (processing entity) with role/skill information that can be invoked when a user recites invocation control information and Goslin et al and O’Sullivan et al’s chat application that provides and processes the initialized objects is thus also constructed to provide the initialized object(s) ), and is rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to claim 12. The method of Claim 11, Goslin et al , O’Sullivan et al and Vishnoi et al teaches wherein the configuration information further comprises scene description information about the target interactive scene, wherein the scene description information is used to construct the first processing entity, or the scene description information is provided to another processing entity participating in the target interactive scene, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 2 (Goslin et al and O’Sullivan et al’s ability to implement a target application containing interactive objects and user objects was explained to be modified (with the teachings of Vishnoi et al) to initialize user interactive objects (processing entity) with role/skill information (interpreted as chat scene description information) that can be invoked when a user recites invocation control information and Goslin et al and O’Sullivan et al’s chat application that provides and processes the initialized objects is thus also constructed to provide the initialized object(s) ), and is rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to claim 18. The electronic device of claim 17, Goslin et al , O’Sullivan et al and Vishnoi et al teaches wherein the method further comprises: receiving a launch request or a debugging request for the target application; presenting a settings window in response to a target role in the set of preset roles being associated with a vacant interactive object; and configuring, via the settings window, a target interactive object corresponding to the target role, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 2, and is rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to claim 19. The electronic device of claim 18, Goslin et al , O’Sullivan et al and Vishnoi et al teaches wherein configuring the target interactive object corresponding to the target role comprises: configuring a current user object as the target interactive object corresponding to the target role; or configuring, based on a received configuration operation, a second processing entity as the target interactive object corresponding to the target role, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 3, and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goslin et al (US Application: US 2021/0075747, published: Mar. 11, 2021, filed: Sep. 9, 2019) in view of O’Sullivan et al (US Application: US 2008/0082609, published: Apr. 3, 2008, filed: Oct. 3, 2006) in view of Gusler et al (US Application: US 20050050143, published: March 3, 2005, filed: Apr. 30, 2003).
With regards to claim 7. The method of Claim 6, Goslin et al teaches wherein presenting a set of interactive messages from the plurality of interactive objects in the session interface, … the session interface … a second interactive object, … second set of interacted messages associated with the second interactive messages … interactive message sent by the second interactive object, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 6 (Goslin et al was explained to teach that there are a plurality of interactive objects and each of the objects can provide/send messages (in a chat screen that also display user messages)), and is rejected under similar rationale.
However the combination of further comprises: receiving a request to switch the session interface to be associated with a second interactive object; and in response to the request, switching the session interface to display a second set of interactive messages associated with the second interactive object, the second set of interactive messages comprising an interactive message sent to the second interactive object and/or an interactive message sent by the second interactive object.
Yet Gusler et al teaches receiving a request to switch the session interface to be associated with a second [entity]; and in response to the request, switching the session interface to display a second set of interactive messages associated with the second [entity], the second set of interactive messages comprising an interactive message sent to the second [entity] and/or an interactive message sent by the second [entity] (Abstract, Fig. 6: a request to switch the interface to be associated with an additional window area comprising messages of a target entity and messages from a second /additional entity (through invitation of ‘others’) is implemented such that messages from the additional entity (such as second entity) is displayed in the additional window area ).
It would have been obvious to have modified Goslin et al and O’Sullivan et al’s ability to display messages in an interface associated with a user and also with messages of one or more interactive entities (chatbots), such that the interface could have been modified to allow switching of a display for a specific entity, as taught by Gusler et al. The combination would have allowed Goslin et al and O’Sullivan et al to have allowed a user to determine which replies belong to which comments when multiple communication threads are occurring (Gusler et al, paragraph 0007).
Claim(s) 13 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goslin et al (US Application: US 2021/0075747, published: Mar. 11, 2021, filed: Sep. 9, 2019) in view of O’Sullivan et al (US Application: US 2008/0082609, published: Apr. 3, 2008, filed: Oct. 3, 2006) in view of Gatti de Bayser et al (US Application: US 20180025726, published: Jan. 25, 2018, filed: Jul. 22, 2016).
With regards to claim 13. The method of Claim 1, Goslin et al and O’Sullivan et al teaches further comprising: … at least one processing entity associated with the target application , … an interactive message, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 1 (Goslin et al was explained to teach a chatbot that produces interactive message(s) within a chat application), and is rejected under similar rationale.
However the combination does not expressly teach ... in response to a received termination request, triggering at least one processing entity associated with the target application to stop generating an interactive message.
Yet Gatti de Bayser et al teaches ... in response to a received termination request, triggering at least one processing entity associated with the target application to stop generating an interactive message (paragraphs 0009, 0052: a chatbot that produces messages can be triggered through control of a processing entity/application-process to be removed from a chat group).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have modified Goslin et al and O’Sullivan et al’s ability to implement a target application that processes chats/messages from user(s) , object(s) and entities, such that chatbots that generate interactive message(s) can be removed/terminated, as taught by Gatti de Bayser et al. The combination would have implemented a flexible way to coordinate multi-chatbots that use natural language systems (Gatti de Bayser et al, paragraph 0006).
With regards to claim 14. The method of Claim 13, the combination of Goslin et al, O’Sullivan et al and Gatti de Bayser et al teaches wherein triggering at least one processing entity associated with the target application to stop generating an interactive message comprises: controlling, based on the termination request, the first processing entity to stop generating indication information for controlling a corresponding processing entity to generate the interactive message, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 13 (Gatti de Bayser et al was explained in paragraphs 0009, 0052 to teach that a chatbot that produces messages can be triggered through control of a processing entity/application-process to be removed from a chat group), and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim(s) 15 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goslin et al (US Application: US 2021/0075747, published: Mar. 11, 2021, filed: Sep. 9, 2019) in view of O’Sullivan et al (US Application: US 2008/0082609, published: Apr. 3, 2008, filed: Oct. 3, 2006) in view of Steinbach et al (US Application: US 2019/0387031, published Dec. 19, 2019, filed: Jun. 18, 2018).
With regards to claim 15. The method of Claim 1, Goslin et al and O’Sullivan teaches further comprising: in response to the session interface being associated with the first processing entity, deleting at least one interactive message corresponding to a specified dialog turn from the session interface based on a received delete request, to update context information associated with the interactive scene, as similarly explained in the rejection for claim 1 (Goslin et al was explained to teach a chat session interface of a chat application/entity and the chat application includes messages from a user and chat bots (these messages are considered context in a chat scene)), and is rejected under similar rationale.
However the combination does not expressly teach deleting at least one interactive message corresponding to a specified dialog turn from the session interface based on a received delete request, to update context information …
Yet Steinbach et al teaches deleting at least one interactive message corresponding to a specified dialog turn from the session interface based on a received delete request, to update context information … (paragraph 0022: a communication/messaging application includes an ability to allow a user to delete messages between the user and a particular chatbot/interactive object (also interpreted as removing/updating the messaging context)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have modified Goslin et al and O’Sullivan et al’s ability to implement a chat/messaging application that supports messaging between user(s) and interactive objects/chatbots (the messaging being considered context data), such that the application supports an ability to invoke a deletion of messaging between a user and a messaging chatbot/interactive object, as taught by Steinbach et al. The combination would have allowed Goslin et al and O’Sullivan et al to have allowed a user to efficiently managed chats/messages and to have optimized storage resources.
With regards to claim 16. The method of Claim 15, the combination of Goslin et al, O’Sullivan et al and Steinbach et al teaches wherein the specified dialog turn comprises a second interactive message generated by the first processing entity and at least one response message provided by another interactive object in response to the second interactive message, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 15 (Steinbach et al teaches a communication/messaging application includes an ability to allow a user to delete messages between the user and a particular chatbot/interactive object (also interpreted as removing/updating the messaging context and Goslin et al and O’Sullivan et al’s application was modified to incorporate the delete function ), and is rejected under similar rationale.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bellamy et al (US Application: US 2020/0226483): This reference teaches interactive objects that produce/generate messages and a moderator object/agent that directs user attention to a particular interactive object/agent.
Munoz et al (US Application: US 2023/0059158): This reference teaches implementing a synthetic moderator in a conference call scenario.
D’Agostino et al (US Application: US 2020/0099633): This reference implements a chat bot conversation manager that tracks conversations occurring over multiple chatbots/interactive objects.
Leeds et al (US Patent: 11431660): This reference teaches a collaborative conversational AI comprising a plurality of AI and human users connected via a forum.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILSON W TSUI whose telephone number is (571)272-7596. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9 am -6 pm.
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, Adam Queler can be reached at (571) 272-4140. 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.
/WILSON W TSUI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2172
Prosecution Insights