Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application on 18/835,013, filed on 7/31/2024 (or after March 16, 2013), is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA (First Inventor to File).
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 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.
This application is a 371 of PCT/CN2024/089555 filed on 04/24/2024
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-7,9-21 are pending in this application.
Examiner acknowledges applicant’s preliminary amendment filed on 7/16/2026
Drawings
The Drawings filed on 7/31/2024 are acceptable for examination purpose.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for CHINA foreign priority under
35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. CHINA
application # 202310485327.1 filed on 04/28/2023.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/16/2026 with respect to claims 1-7,9-21 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive, for examiner’s response see discussion below:
a)At page 9-11, under 35 USC 101, applicant argues:
claim 1 recitations “the dialogue page comprise a historical dialogue record and an input control and each dialogue topic corresponds to at least one dialogue content, which can conveniently and quickly locate dialogue content of interest through the dialogue topic, such that the user does not need to remember the keywords of the dialogue to search for the dialogue conent of interest only through keywords, thereyby improving the searching efficiency of the dialogue content and improving the intelligent experience of dialogue with the intelligent robot………….Thus, claim 1 is not directed to an abstract idea and is patent eligible……..
Examiner’s response:
Examiner submits that the pending claims (as amended 7/16/2026) should pass the test set forth in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance published on January 7, 2019 (84 Fed. Reg. 50), as updated October 2019, referred to herein as the PEG 2019. Applicant will focus on Prong Two of Step 2A, in evaluating the pending claims using this section of the test set forth in the PEG 2019
As explained in the 2019 PEG, the evaluation of Prong Two of Step 2A requires the use of the considerations (e.g. improving technology, effecting a particular treatment or prophylaxis, implementing with a particular machine, etc.) identified by the Supreme Court and the Federal Circuit, to ensure that the claim as a whole “integrates [the] judicial exception into a practical application [that] will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception”. These considerations are set forth in the 2019 PEG, MPEP 2106.05(a) through (c), and MPEP 2106.05(e) through (h). Note, a specific way of achieving a result is not a stand-alone consideration in Step 2A Prong Two. However, the specificity of the claim limitations is relevant to the evaluation of several considerations including the use of a particular machine, particular transformation and whether the limitations are mere instructions to apply an exception. If the claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application based upon evaluation of these considerations, the additional limitations impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, and the claim is eligible at Step 2A.
As best understood by the examiner, the additional element of “intelligent robot” may improve the accuracy and/or automation of data processing, the addition of “using a computer device, a dialogue page for a dialogue between a user and “chatting assistant” in the claim 1 (as amended 7/16/2026) herein does not make the claim rooted in computer technology or improve the functioning of a computer, mere “chatting assistant” or the functioning of a computer device(s) is NOT an improvement and hence does not result in a practical application. It is further noted dialogue content, dialogue topic, historical dialogue record limitations are either performing basic computer functions such as receiving data, performing functions “known” in the art and hence are well-understood, routine and conventional activities and do not amount or add significantly more, do not provide “improvement to another technology or technical field”. The limitations when taken individually or as an ordered combination do not offer an inventive concept that may amount to add significantly more. As discussed above, the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim limitations (as amended 7/16/2026) may grouping of abstract idea(s) because they cover concepts performed including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion, furthermore, mere data gathering and output recited at a high level of generality, and are insignificant extract solution activity, amounts to nothing significantly more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components performing routine computer functions That is not enough to transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.See MPEP 2106.05(g). Thus these arguments are not persuasive.
See Alice, 573 US at 225-26; see also Inventor Holdings, LLC v. Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc., 876 F.3d 1372,1378 (Fed.Cir.2017) (sequence of receiving, analyzing, modifying, generating, displaying, and transmitting data recited an abstraction)
Examiner applies above arguments to claims 2-7,11-21 depend from claim 1,9,10
b)Atpage,11-14, claim 1, applicant argues:
Although Figs. 9 -11 of Takechi illustrate some chat data, it is noted that these figures are merely examples of "data configuration diagrams" within the processor (see paragraphs [0020]- [0022] of Takechi), and do not constitute dialogue content being directly displayed on a "dialogue page." Thus, Takechi does not disclose or suggest at least the "dialogue page" recited in claim 1 and the various contents displayed on the dialogue page, nor does Takechi disclose the above- quoted steps of the claimed method. Thus, Takechi does not disclose or suggest at least "displaying by using a computer device, a dialogue page for a dialogue between a user and a chatting assistant, wherein the dialogue page comprises a historical dialogue record and an input control," "displaying by using a computer device, in response to a view operation on the historical dialogue record in the dialogue page, at least one dialogue topic corresponding to the historical dialogue record, wherein each dialogue topic corresponds to at least one dialogue content," and "locating by using a computer device, in response to a triggering operation for any dialogue topic, a current dialogue position in the dialogue page to a position corresponding to the dialogue topic in the historical dialogue record," as recited in claim 1.
Lee fails to remedy the deficiencies of Takechi discussed above with respect to claim 1. For example, Lee also does not disclose any dialogue page that embodies human-machine dialogue.
Examiner’s response:
As to the above argument, as best understood by the examiner, Takechi teaches topic selection, display apparatus including conversation section (Takechi: Abstract, fig 5). Takechii teaches display section robot function including conversation section element 717 performing conversation with the user, particularly conversation selection element 717 initiates topic of a conversation with the user, i.e., conversation between user and the robot chat mode (Takechii : fig 5, 0106,0108,0110,0234), as such Takechii supports on the display apparatus element 1, dialog system with a language of preference (0312), further it is noted that Takechii specifically teaches chat function, and conversation with a user including selects topic and like (Abstract) and maintains historical dialog, such as dialogue or conversation history with timestamp as detailed in fig 9-10 both conversation content, chat content history, further conversation or chat content associated with the respective condition or topic as detailed in fig 11 (Takechi : fig 9-10, fig 11, 0139-0141)
The prior art of Lee is directed to topic suggest in in messaging system, particularly chat transaction history, querying chat history and identifying corresponding topic(s) in a interactive environment. (Lee: fig 2), while chat transcripts represents real-world user queries (Lee: 0025). Prior art of Lee teaches conversational AI system element 110 supporting authoring information such as trigger phrases, topics that defines how virtual agent 112 operates, and the authoring tool element 122 displays information generated by topic suggestion system. (Lee: 0041, fig 2, 0077-0080, fig 6-7) Lee teaches virtual agents (bot name) user interface where user able to select topics, topic triggering associated with the chat history, particularly topic suggestion system associated with the chat transcript history and chat analyzer as detailed in fig 2)
PNG
media_image1.png
151
163
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
381
264
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It is however, noted that both Takechi, Lee do not teach “chatting assistant”, although Takechi specifically teaches “chat mode” operation (Takechi: fig 21, 0234), Lee specifically teaches “chatbot” (Lee: 0022-0023). On the other hand, Raman disclosed “chatting assistant” (title suggest automated chat assistant, fig 2)
PNG
media_image3.png
179
174
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the claimed invention extraction in automated chat assistant, particularly intent expressed by query of Raman et al., into users of topic selection basis of content conversation and chat execution and/chat selection select topic of Takechi et al.,, interactive conversational AI system of Lee et al., because that would have allowed users “chatting assistant” as a intelligence tool to converse particularly performing tasks, inquiries to offer in real-time assistance including natural language query or command from a human user (Raman: 0004-0005). The exemplary rationales that may support prima facie conclusion of obviousness includes (F) Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art-KSR, 550 US at 398.
Examiner applies above arguments to 9-10
At page 14, examiner noted applicant’s remarks on claim 2-7, 9-21, 11-21 and examiner applies above arguments to claims 2-7, 9,11-21 depend from claim 1, 9-10
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-2,9,10-11,17 (as amended 7/16/2026) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1,9,10 (as amended) A method for searching for a dialogue content in a dialogue page, comprising:
displaying by using a computer device, a dialogue page for a dialogue between a user and a chatting assistant, wherein the dialogue page comprises a historical dialogue record and an input control;
displaying by using a computer device, in response to a view operation on the historical dialogue record in the dialogue page, at least one dialogue topic corresponding to the historical dialogue record, wherein each dialogue topic corresponds to at least one dialogue content; and
locating by using a computer device, in response to a triggering operation for any dialogue topic, a current dialogue position in the dialogue page to a position corresponding to the dialogue topic in the historical dialogue record”, however, specification does not have support for either interpretation (a) or (b)
in particular claims recite the newly added limitation “chatting assistant”,
upon review of specification, the closet paragraph merely states “chat with users”, “chat content”, (para 0003-0004,0041-0043), chat with intelligent robots (para 0041), chat window (0051,0059), but NOT “chatting assistant”. Additionally, entire specification does not mention “chatting assistant”
For these reasons, claims 1-7,9-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) lack of written description rejection above
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-2,9,10-11,17 (as amended 7/16/2026) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. The claims recite “chatting assistant”, it is unclear what the claim limitation “chatting assistant” precisely means, since the specification also does not make any suggestion as to what this means (see the 112(a) rejection, lack of written description, rejection above for further detail).
For these reasons, claims 1-7,9-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for being indefinite.
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 1-7,9-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Claim 1-7,9-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The eligibility analysis in support of these findings is provided below, in accordance with the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Federal Register (84 FR 50) on January 7, 2019 hereinafter 2019 PEG
Step 1. In accordance with Step 1 of the eligibility inquiry (as explained in MPEP 2106), it is noted that the method of claim 1,9, directed to one of the eligible categories of subject matter and therefore satisfy Step 1.
Step 2A. In accordance with Step 2A prong one of the 2019 PEG, the limitations reciting the abstract idea are highlighted, and the limitations directed to additional elements are highlighted, as set forth in exemplary claim 1
Claim 1,9,10: directed to: A method for searching for a dialogue content in a dialogue page, comprising:
displaying by using a computer device, a dialogue page for a dialogue between a user and a chatting assistant, wherein the dialogue page comprises a historical dialogue record and an input control;
displaying by using a computer device, in response to a view operation on the historical dialogue record in the dialogue page, at least one dialogue topic corresponding to the historical dialogue record, wherein each dialogue topic corresponds to at least one dialogue content; and
locating by using a computer device, in response to a triggering operation for any dialogue topic, a current dialogue position in the dialogue page to a position corresponding to the dialogue topic in the historical dialogue record”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, mere displaying information. For example, displaying a dialogue, dialogue page, historical dialogue record, in the context of this claim encompasses the user thinking mere display dialogue (entries) record
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas set forth in the 2019 PEG. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
With respect to Step 2A prong two of the 2019 PEG, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements are directed to method steps, however, these elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they fail to provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field, fail to apply the exception with a particular machine, fail to apply the judicial exception to effect a particular data structure of display dialogue, dialogue between user and the machine and/or robot to effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing, and fail to apply/use the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Furthermore, although these elements have been fully considered, they are directed to the use of generic computing elements (fig 6, para 0134-0144 of the instant specification make it clear that the disclosed functionality is implemented on well-known computing systems and general purpose computing devices) to perform the abstract idea, which is not sufficient to amount to a practical application (as noted in the 2019 PEG) and is amount to simply saying "apply it" using a general purpose computer, which merely serves to tie the abstract idea to a particular technological environment computer based operating environment) by using the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
Since the analysis of Step 2A prong one and prong two results in the conclusion that the claims are directed to an abstract idea, additional analysis under Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry must be conducted in order to determine whether any claim element or combination of elements amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 2B. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional method limitations are directed to a generic computer, at a very high level of generality and without imposing meaningful limitations on the scope of the claim. In addition (fig 6, para 0134-0144 of the instant specification describe generic off-the-shelf computer-based elements for implementing the claimed invention which does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea and is not enough to transform an abstract idea into eligible subject matter. Such generic, high-level, and nominal involvement of a computer or computer-based elements for carrying out the invention merely serves to tie the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, which is not enough to render the claims patent-eligible, as noted at pg. 74624 of Federal Register/Vol. 79, No. 241, citing Alice, which in turn cites Mayo. Further, See, e.g., Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2359-60, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1984 (2014). See also OIP Techs. v. Amazon.com, 788 F.3d 1359, 1364, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093-94 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ("Just as Diehr could not save the claims in Alice, which were directed to 'implement[ing] the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer', it cannot save O/P's claims directed to implementing the abstract idea of price optimization on a generic computer.") (citations omitted). See also, Affinity Labs of Texas LLC v. DirecTV LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1257-1258 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (mere recitation of a GUI does not make a claim patent-eligible); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank, 792 F.3d 1363, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ("the interactive interface limitation is a generic computer element".) ,the additional elements are broadly applied to the abstract idea at a high level of generality ("similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claims in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer,") as explained in MPEP § 2106.05(f)) and they operate in a well-understood, routine, and conventional manner.
MPEP § 2106.05 (d)(II) sets forth the following:
The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g. at a high level of generality) as insignificant extra-solution activity.
Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec...; TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC...; OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc... ; buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc...;
Performing repetitive calculations, Flook ... ; Bancorp Services v. Sun Life...;
Electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp...; Ultramercial... ;
Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc...;
Electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, Content Extraction and Transmission, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank...; and
A web browser's back and forward button functionality, Internet Patent Corp. v. Active Network, Inc...
Courts have held computer-implemented processes not to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus ineligible) where the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement an abstract idea, such as an idea that could be done by a human analog (i.e., by hand or by merely thinking).
Claim 2,11,17, further elaborates “wherein displaying by using a computer device the dialogue page for the dialogue between the user and the chatting assistant comprises:
displaying, in response to an artificial intelligence dialogue identifier triggered in a video page, the dialogue page for the dialogue between the user and the chatting assistant, wherein the dialogue page comprises the historical dialogue record corresponding to the video page, or the dialogue page comprises the historical dialogue record corresponding to a video set associated with the video page”, which have been determined to be extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(I). Even in combination, the additional details recited in these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 3,12,18, further elaborates
“generating the dialogue topic,
wherein generating the dialogue topic comprises:
performing semantic feature extraction on each dialogue content in the historical dialogue record, and determining a semantic feature vector representing dialogue content semantics; and
clustering each dialogue content based on the semantic feature vector of each dialogue content, and determining each dialogue topic”, which have been determined to be extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(I). Even in combination, the additional details recited in these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea
Claim 4,13,19, further elaborates “wherein clustering each dialogue content based on the semantic feature vector of each dialogue content and determining each dialogue topic comprises:
computing a semantic relevance between different dialogue contents based on the semantic feature vector of each dialogue content; and determining each continuous dialogue content under an identical dialogue topic based on the semantic relevance, and
determining topic information of the identical dialogue topic based on each continuous dialogue content, wherein the semantic relevance between continuous dialogue contents under the identical dialogue topic is greater than a set threshold value”, which have been determined to be extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(I). Even in combination, the additional details recited in these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 5,14,20, further elaborates “wherein displaying, by using a computer device, in response to the view operation on the historical dialogue record in the dialogue page, at least one dialogue topic corresponding to the historical dialogue record comprises:
in response to the view operation on a historical dialogue record identifier in the dialogue page, displaying a dialogue topic window, and sequentially displaying each dialogue topic in the dialogue topic window according to an attribute feature of each dialogue topic, wherein the attribute feature comprises at least one selected from a group consisting of: dialogue time, topic popularity, and user search data”, which have been determined to be extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(I). Even in combination, the additional details recited in these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 6,15,21, further elaborates “wherein locating, by using a computer device, in response to the triggering operation for any dialogue topic, the current dialogue position in the dialogue page to the position corresponding to the dialogue topic in the historical dialogue record comprises:
in response to the triggering operation for any dialogue topic, sequentially displaying, at a current displayable region in the dialogue page, each dialogue content under the dialogue topic starting from a first dialogue content under the dialogue topic”, which have been determined to be extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(I). Even in combination, the additional details recited in these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 7,16, further elaborates “wherein displaying, by using a computer device, at least one dialogue topic corresponding to the historical dialogue record comprises:
displaying at least one dialogue topic corresponding to the historical dialogue record, and dialogue time information and/or number of dialogue contents corresponding to each dialogue topic, wherein the dialogue time information is used for indicating dialogue starting time or a dialogue time range corresponding to the dialogue topic”, which have been determined to be extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(I). Even in combination, the additional details recited in these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 8. (Canceled)
Claims 1-7,9-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takechii et al., (hereafter Takechii), US Pub. No. 2019/0138266 published May, 2019 Lee et al., (hereafter Lee), US Pub. No. 2023/0281389 based on provisional application filed on Mar 2022 in view of Raman et al., (hereafter Raman), US Pub. No. 2021/0056098 published Feb, 2021
As to Claim 1,9,10 Takechii teaches a system which including “method for searching for a dialogue content in a dialogue page, comprising (Takechii: fig 5);
PNG
media_image4.png
297
180
media_image4.png
Greyscale
displaying by using a computer device, a dialogue page for a dialogue between a user and chatting (Takechii: fig 5, 0106,0108,0110,0234 – Takechii teaches display section robot function including conversation section element 717 performing conversation with the user, particularly conversation selection element 717 initiates topic of a conversation with the user, i.e., conversation between user and the robot chat mode) “wherein the dialogue page comprises a historical dialogue record and an input control” (Takechii: 0112, fig 5-6,element 755, 756 – Takechii teaches data management of history data particularly both conversation history data, element 755, and chat history data element 756 using conversation, chat programs P2,P3 respectively as detailed in fig 6histoical dialogue record(s) corresponds to Takechi’s fig 6, 755, 756);
PNG
media_image4.png
297
180
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
231
142
media_image5.png
Greyscale
“displaying, by using a computer device, in response to a view operation on the historical dialogue record in the dialogue page, at least one dialogue topic corresponding to the historical dialogue record, wherein each dialogue topic corresponds to at least one dialogue content” (Takechi: fig 9-10, fig 11, 0139-0141 – Takechi teaches dialogue or conversation history with timestamp as detailed in fig 9-10 both conversation content, chat content history, further conversation or chat content associated with the respective condition or topic as detailed in fig 11); and
locating, by using a computer device, in response , for any dialogue topic, a current dialogue position in the dialogue page to a position corresponding to the dialogue topic in the historical dialogue record” (Takechi: fig 6,0110,0138-0139,0140 - Takechi teaches bot conversation history data, chat history data).
It is however, noted that Takechi does not disclose “triggering operation for any dialogue topic”, although Takechi teaches chat content, conversation content associated with topic keywords that triggers conversation used by the control section element 71 comparing with topics in the conversation history and chat history (Takechi: fig 11, 0141). On the other hand, Lee disclosed “triggering operation for any dialogue topic” (Lee: 0041, fig 2, 0077-0080, fig 6-7, Lee teaches conversational AI system element 110 supporting authoring information such as trigger phrases, topics that defines how virtual agent 112 operates, and the authoring tool element 122 displays information generated by topic suggestion system. Lee teaches virtual agents (bot name) user interface where user able to select topics, topic triggering associated with the chat history, particularly topic suggestion system associated with the chat transcript history and chat analyzer as detailed in fig 2)
PNG
media_image1.png
151
163
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
381
264
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the claimed invention topic suggestion in messaging system, particularly interactive conversational AI system of Lee et al., into topic selection basis of content conversation and chat execution and/chat selection select topic of Takechi et al., because both Takechi, Lee teaches artificial intelligence system supporting chat, conversation user interface and topics (Takechi: Abstract, fig 5-6; Lee: fig 1-2, Abstract), and they both are from the same field of endeavor. Because both Takechi, Lee teaches conversational AI system, it would have been obvious to one skill ed in the art to substitute and/or modify one method for the other particularly conversational AI system including triggering topic system that identifies not only topic by the bot, but also configured to generate a corresponding suggested topic(s) (Lee: 0005) thereby improve the simulation of human conversation, reducing the likelihood that the system asks a clarifying to identify a topic the user is interested in discussing (Lee: 0025-0026), thus improves overall quality and reliability of the system.
It is however, noted that both Takechi, Lee do not teach “chatting assistant”, although Takechi specifically teaches “chat mode” operation (Takechi: fig 21, 0234), Lee specifically teaches “chatbot” (Lee: 0022-0023). On the other hand, Raman disclosed “chatting assistant” (title suggest automated chat assistant, fig 2)
PNG
media_image3.png
179
174
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the claimed invention extraction in automated chat assistant, particularly intent expressed by query of Raman et al., into users of topic selection basis of content conversation and chat execution and/chat selection select topic of Takechi et al.,, interactive conversational AI system of Lee et al., because that would have allowed users “chatting assistant” as a intelligence tool to converse particularly performing tasks, inquiries to offer in real-time assistance including natural language query or command from a human user (Raman: 0004-0005)
As to Claim 2,11,17, the combination of Takechi, Lee, Raman disclosed:
“displaying, in response to an artificial intelligence dialogue identifier triggered in a video page, the dialogue page for the dialogue between the user and the chat, wherein the dialogue page comprises the historical dialogue record corresponding to the video page, or the dialogue page comprises the historical dialogue record corresponding to a video set associated with the video page” (Takechi: 0308, 0315-0316, fig 9-11, fig 22A-22B), although Takechi specifically teaches “chat mode” operation (Takechi: fig 21, 0234), Lee specifically teaches “chatbot” (Lee: 0022-0023). On the other hand, Raman disclosed “chatting assistant” ((title suggest automated chat assistant, fig 2)
As to Claim 3,12,18, the combination of Takechi, Lee, Raman disclosed:
“generating the dialogue topic” (Takechi : fig 5, 0108-0109),
wherein generating the dialogue topic comprises: (Takechi : fig 5)
PNG
media_image4.png
297
180
media_image4.png
Greyscale
performing extraction on each dialogue content in the historical dialogue record, and determining a representing dialogue content semantics” (Takechi: fig 9-10, 0145,0163). On the other hand, Lee disclosed “clustering each dialogue content based on the semantic feature vector of each dialogue content, and determining each dialogue topic” (Lee: fig 3,0005, 00240041,0045)
As to Claim 4,13,19, the combination of Takechi, Lee, Raman disclosed:
“computing a semantic relevance between different dialogue contents based on the semantic feature vector of each dialogue content; and determining each continuous dialogue content under an identical dialogue topic based on the semantic relevance” (Lee: fig 3, 0060, 0063-0064) and
“determining topic information of the identical dialogue topic based on each continuous dialogue content, wherein the semantic relevance between continuous dialogue contents under the identical dialogue topic is greater than a set threshold value” (Lee: fig 2-3, 0046-0047)
PNG
media_image6.png
300
252
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
244
194
media_image7.png
Greyscale
As to Claim 5,14,20, the combination of Takechi, Lee, Raman disclosed:
in response to the view operation on a historical dialogue record identifier in the dialogue page, displaying a dialogue topic window, (Takechi: fig 5, 0108-0109 )and sequentially displaying each dialogue topic in the dialogue topic window according to an attribute feature of each dialogue topic, wherein the attribute feature comprises at least one selected from a group consisting of: dialogue time, topic popularity, and user search data” (Takechi: fig 22A-22B).
As to Claim 6,15,21, the combination of Takechi, Lee disclosed:
“in response to the triggering operation for any dialogue topic, sequentially displaying, at a current displayable region in the dialogue page, each dialogue content under the dialogue topic starting from a first dialogue content under the dialogue topic” (Lee: fig 6-7,0076-0079) .
PNG
media_image6.png
300
252
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
244
194
media_image7.png
Greyscale
As to Claim 7,16, the combination of Takechi, Lee disclosed:
“displaying at least one dialogue topic corresponding to the historical dialogue record, and dialogue time information and/or number of dialogue contents corresponding to each dialogue topic, (Takechi: fig 6, fig 9-11) wherein the dialogue time information is used for indicating dialogue starting time or a dialogue time range corresponding to the dialogue topic” (Takechi: fig 10-11).
PNG
media_image8.png
199
153
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
105
178
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Claim 8. (Canceled)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record
a. US Pub. No. 2019/0138266
b. US Pub. No. 2023/0281389
c. US Pub. No 2021/0056098
Examiner's Note: Examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
SEE MPEP 2141.02 [R-5] VI. PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS: A prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e., as a whole, including portions that would lead away from the claimed invention. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984) In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201,73 USPQ2d 1141, 1146 (Fed. Cir. 2004). >See also MPEP §2123.
In the case of amending the Claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
The prior art made of record, listed on form PTO-892, and not relied upon, if any, is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure
Authorization for Internet Communications
The examiner encourages Applicant to submit an authorization to communicate with the examiner via the Internet by making the following statement (from MPEP 502.03):
“Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with the undersigned and practitioners in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application by video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.”
Please note that the above statement can only be submitted via Central Fax (not Examiner's Fax), Regular postal mail, or EFS Web using PTO/SB/439.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Srirama Channavajjala whose telephone number is 571-272-4108. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:00 AM to 5:30 PM Eastern Time.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Gorney, Boris, can be reached on (571) 270- 5626. The fax phone numbers for the organization where the 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)
/Srirama Channavajjala/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2154
Prosecution Insights