DETAILED ACTION
Introduction
This office action is in response to Applicant’s submission filed on December 20, 2024.
Claims 1-20 are pending in the application. As such, claims 1-20 have been examined.
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 .
Drawings
The drawings were received on December 20, 2024. These drawings have been accepted and considered by the Examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 5-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 5, line 4, reads “a user”. Examiner believes this to be a clerical error and it is intended to read “the user”. Claims 6-10 depend from claim 5 and therefore inherit this objection.
Claim 5, line 4, reads “an input”. Examiner believes this to be a clerical error and it is intended to read “the input”. Claims 6-10 depend from claim 5 and therefore inherit this objection.
Claim 5, line 4, reads “an intent indicating a risk”. Examiner believes this to be a clerical error and it is intended to read “the intent indicating a risk”. Claims 6-10 depend from claim 5 and therefore inherit this objection.
Claim 5, line 6, reads “an intent”. Examiner believes this to be a clerical error and it is intended to read “the intent”. Claims 6-10 depend from claim 5 and therefore inherit this objection.
Claim 5, line 10, reads “an output”. Examiner believes this to be a clerical error and it is intended to read “the output”. Claims 6-10 depend from claim 5 and therefore inherit this objection.
Claim 5, line 12, reads “an output generation module”. Examiner believes this to be a clerical error and it is intended to read “the output generation module”. Claims 6-10 depend from claim 5 and therefore inherit this objection.
Claim 8, line 13, reads “wherein at least one subsequent output”. Examiner believes this to be a clerical error and it is intended to read “wherein the at least one subsequent output”. Claims 9-10 depend from claim 8 and therefore inherit this objection.
Claim 12, line 7, reads “an output”. Examiner believes this to be a clerical error and it is intended to read “the output”. Claims 13-20 depend from claim 12 and therefore inherit this objection.
Claim 12, line 10, reads “an output generation module”. Examiner believes this to be a clerical error and it is intended to read “the output generation module”. Claims 13-20 depend from claim 12 and therefore inherit this objection.
Claim 12, line 14, reads “an intent”. Examiner believes this to be a clerical error and it is intended to read “the intent”. Claims 13-20 depend from claim 12 and therefore inherit this objection.
Claim 12, line 14, reads “a list of predetermined intents”. Examiner believes this to be a clerical error and it is intended to read “the list of predetermined intents”. Claims 13-20 depend from claim 12 and therefore inherit this objection.
Claim 12, line 24, reads “an output”. Examiner believes this to be a clerical error and it is intended to read “the output”. Claims 13-20 depend from claim 12 and therefore inherit this objection.
Claim 14, line 2, reads “at least one background sub-dialogue unit”. Examiner believes this to be a clerical error and it is intended to read “the at least one background sub-dialogue unit”.
Claim 17, line 5, reads “an output”. Examiner believes this to be a clerical error and it is intended to read “the output”. Claim 18 depends from claim 17 and therefore inherits this objection.
Claim 17, line 7, reads “an output generation module”. Examiner believes this to be a clerical error and it is intended to read “the output generation module”. Claim 18 depends from claim 17 and therefore inherits this objection.
Claim 19, line 2, reads “at least one background sub-dialogue unit”. Examiner believes this to be a clerical error and it is intended to read “the at least one background sub-dialogue unit”.
Claims 7-11, line 1, reads “The method according to”. Examiner believes this to be a clerical error and it is intended to read “The computer-implemented method according to”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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: the sub-dialogue units and the modules throughout the claims.
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. Specifically, the sub-dialogue units and the modules throughout the claims are interpreted as processors as described in the specification [page 22 line 29 – page 23 line13].
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 11, 15 and 18 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 11, line 3, recites the limitation "the corresponding output". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15, line 3-4, recites the limitation "the corresponding output". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 18, line 3, recites the limitation "the identified risk". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite:
A computer-implemented method comprising:
receiving an input from a user;
simultaneously analysing the input using a natural language understanding module of an active sub-dialogue unit and a natural language understanding module of at least one background sub-dialogue unit, wherein each natural language understanding module is configured to identify, if present within the input, at least one intent from a list of predetermined intents associated with the corresponding sub-dialogue unit;
[claim 12 only] an adjudicator
identifying each sub-dialogue unit comprising a natural language understanding module that has identified an intent;
determining which one of the identified sub-dialogue units meets a predetermined criterion;
selecting the sub-dialogue unit that meets the predetermined criterion;
determining an output using a sub-dialogue planning module of the selected sub-dialogue unit, wherein the output is based, at least in part, on the at least one identified intent; and
providing the output to the user using an output generation module of the selected sub- dialogue unit.
The claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind. For example,
“receiving an input from a user” in the context of this claim encompasses a person listening,
“analysing the input using a natural language understanding module of an active sub-dialogue unit and a natural language understanding module of at least one background sub-dialogue unit, wherein each natural language understanding module is configured to identify, if present within the input, at least one intent from a list of predetermined intents associated with the corresponding sub-dialogue unit” in the context of this claim encompasses a person determining an intent,
“identifying each sub-dialogue unit comprising a natural language understanding module that has identified an intent” in the context of this claim encompasses a person determining a category of the intent,
“determining which one of the identified sub-dialogue units meets a predetermined criterion” in the context of this claim encompasses a person identifying the most appropriate category,
“selecting the sub-dialogue unit that meets the predetermined criterion” in the context of this claim encompasses a person choosing the category,
“determining an output using a sub-dialogue planning module of the selected sub-dialogue unit, wherein the output is based, at least in part, on the at least one identified intent” in the context of this claim encompasses a person deciding how to respond,
“providing the output to the user using an output generation module of the selected sub- dialogue unit” in the context of this claim encompasses a person responding to the other person.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites these additional elements. These additional elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
natural language understanding modules
planning module
sub-dialogue units
an adjudicator
output generation module.
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea that do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
The dependent claims do not add limitations that would either integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application or could help the Claim as a whole to amount to significantly more than the Abstract idea identified for the Independent Claim.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites:
wherein determining which one of the identified sub-dialogue units meets the predetermined criterion consists of one of:
determining which one of the identified sub-dialogue units is the active sub-dialogue unit;
assigning a predetermined priority value to each sub-dialogue unit and determining the identified sub-dialogue unit having the highest priority value; and
determining a confidence value for each sub-dialogue unit, wherein the confidence value indicates how confident the corresponding natural language understanding module is in its identification of the intent, and determining the identified sub-dialogue unit having the highest confidence value.
The additional limitations of the claim do not preclude the method from practically being performed in the mind. For example,
“determining which one of the identified sub-dialogue units meets the predetermined criterion” in the context of this claim encompasses a person selecting a category,
“determining which one of the identified sub-dialogue units is the active sub-dialogue unit” in the context of this claim encompasses a person deciding what the topic is about,
“assigning a predetermined priority value to each sub-dialogue unit and determining the identified sub-dialogue unit having the highest priority value” in the context of this claim encompasses a person having a bias toward a certain topic,
“determining a confidence value for each sub-dialogue unit, wherein the confidence value indicates how confident the corresponding natural language understanding module is in its identification of the intent, and determining the identified sub-dialogue unit having the highest confidence value” in the context of this claim encompasses a person identifying which topic and category is most reliable.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites these additional elements. These additional elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
sub-dialogue units
natural language understanding module.
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea that do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites:
wherein determining which one of the identified sub-dialogue units meets the predetermined criterion comprises:
calculating an overall score for each identified sub-dialogue unit, wherein the overall score is calculated based on at least one of:
determining which one of the identified sub-dialogue units is the active sub-dialogue unit;
assigning a predetermined priority value to each sub-dialogue unit; and
determining a confidence value for each sub-dialogue unit, wherein the confidence value indicates how confident the corresponding natural language understanding module is in its identification of the intent; and
selecting the sub-dialogue unit having the highest overall score.
The additional limitations of the claim do not preclude the method from practically being performed in the mind. For example,
“determining which one of the identified sub-dialogue units meets the predetermined criterion” in the context of this claim encompasses a person identifying the most appropriate category,
“calculating an overall score for each identified sub-dialogue unit” in the context of this claim encompasses a person combining factors to get some average,
“determining which one of the identified sub-dialogue units is the active sub-dialogue unit” in the context of this claim encompasses a person determining an intent,
“assigning a predetermined priority value to each sub-dialogue unit” in the context of this claim encompasses a person ranking the categories,
“determining a confidence value for each sub-dialogue unit, wherein the confidence value indicates how confident the corresponding natural language understanding module is in its identification of the intent” in the context of this claim encompasses a person assigning sub-categories,
“selecting the sub-dialogue unit having the highest overall score” in the context of this claim encompasses a person deciding how to respond.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites these additional elements. These additional elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
sub-dialogue units
natural language understanding module.
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea that do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites:
wherein at least one sub-dialogue unit is a risk sub-dialogue unit comprising a natural language understanding module configured to identify an intent indicating a risk.
The additional limitations of the claim do not preclude the method from practically being performed in the mind. For example,
“wherein at least one sub-dialogue unit is a risk sub-dialogue unit comprising a natural language understanding module configured to identify an intent indicating a risk” in the context of this claim encompasses a person ensuring the generic computer components identify risk.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites these additional elements. These additional elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
sub-dialogue units
natural language understanding module.
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea that do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites:
assigning a predetermined priority value to each sub-dialogue unit, wherein the risk sub- dialogue unit is assigned the highest priority value;
receiving an input from a user, wherein the input comprises an intent indicating a risk;
identifying each sub-dialogue unit having a natural language understanding module that has identified an intent;
determining that the risk sub-dialogue unit is the identified sub-dialogue unit having the highest priority value;
selecting the risk sub-dialogue unit;
determining an output using a sub-dialogue planning module of the risk sub-dialogue unit, wherein the output is based, at least in part, on the intent indicating a risk; and
providing the output to the user using an output generation module of the risk sub-dialogue unit.
The additional limitations of the claim do not preclude the method from practically being performed in the mind. For example,
“assigning a predetermined priority value to each sub-dialogue unit, wherein the risk sub- dialogue unit is assigned the highest priority value” in the context of this claim encompasses a person having a bias toward a certain topic,
“receiving an input from a user, wherein the input comprises an intent indicating a risk” in the context of this claim encompasses a person listening for a risk,
“identifying each sub-dialogue unit having a natural language understanding module that has identified an intent” in the context of this claim encompasses a person ensuring the generic computer components exist,
“determining that the risk sub-dialogue unit is the identified sub-dialogue unit having the highest priority value” in the context of this claim encompasses a person identifying which topic and category is most reliable,
“selecting the risk sub-dialogue unit” in the context of this claim encompasses a person listening,
“determining an output using a sub-dialogue planning module of the risk sub-dialogue unit, wherein the output is based, at least in part, on the intent indicating a risk” in the context of this claim encompasses a person deciding what the topic is about,
“providing the output to the user using an output generation module of the risk sub-dialogue unit” in the context of this claim encompasses a person responding to the other person.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites these additional elements. These additional elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
sub-dialogue units
natural language understanding module
planning module
output generation module.
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea that do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites:
wherein the output is configured to confirm the presence of the intent indicating a risk within the input.
The additional limitations of the claim do not preclude the method from practically being performed in the mind. For example,
“wherein the output is configured to confirm the presence of the intent indicating a risk within the input” in the context of this claim encompasses a person ensuring there is a risk.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites no additional elements.
Accordingly, these no additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the no additional elements do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites:
receiving, in response to the output, a reply from the user confirming the presence of the intent indicating a risk.
The additional limitations of the claim do not preclude the method from practically being performed in the mind. For example,
“receiving, in response to the output, a reply from the user confirming the presence of the intent indicating a risk” in the context of this claim encompasses a person receiving confirmation of a risk.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites no additional elements.
Accordingly, these no additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the no additional elements do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites:
providing, using the output generation module of the risk sub-dialogue unit, at least one subsequent output to the user,
wherein at least one subsequent output is configured to determine the severity of the risk associated with the intent indicating a risk.
The additional limitations of the claim do not preclude the method from practically being performed in the mind. For example,
“providing, using the output generation module of the risk sub-dialogue unit, at least one subsequent output to the user” in the context of this claim encompasses a person responding to the other person,
“wherein at least one subsequent output is configured to determine the severity of the risk associated with the intent indicating a risk” in the context of this claim encompasses a person assigning importance to the risk.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites these additional elements. These additional elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
sub-dialogue units
output generation module.
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea that do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites:
receiving at least one subsequent reply from the user; and
estimating the severity of the risk based, at least in part, on the input, reply and/or at least one subsequent reply.
The additional limitations of the claim do not preclude the method from practically being performed in the mind. For example,
“receiving at least one subsequent reply from the user” in the context of this claim encompasses a person listening again,
“estimating the severity of the risk based, at least in part, on the input, reply and/or at least one subsequent reply” in the context of this claim encompasses a person reassessing the risk.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites no additional elements.
Accordingly, these no additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the no additional elements do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites:
further comprising taking an action, wherein the action is based, at least on part, on the estimated severity of the risk.
The additional limitations of the claim do not preclude the method from practically being performed in the mind. For example,
“taking an action, wherein the action is based, at least on part, on the estimated severity of the risk” in the context of this claim encompasses a person acting based on the risk.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites no additional elements.
Accordingly, these no additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the no additional elements do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 11 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite:
wherein each natural language understanding module is further configured to identify, where present, at least one slot within the input; and
wherein the corresponding output, if determined, is based, at least in part, on the at least one identified slot.
The additional limitations of the claim do not preclude the method from practically being performed in the mind. For example,
“each natural language understanding module is further configured to identify, where present, at least one slot within the input” in the context of this claim encompasses a person determining the location of the keywords,
“the corresponding output, if determined, is based, at least in part, on the at least one identified slot” in the context of this claim encompasses a person responding based on the positions.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites these additional elements. These additional elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
natural language understanding module.
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea that do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites:
wherein the output generation module of the active sub-dialogue unit is a natural language generation module.
The additional limitations of the claim do not preclude the method from practically being performed in the mind. For example,
“wherein the output generation module of the active sub-dialogue unit is a natural language generation module” in the context of this claim encompasses a person ensuring the generic computer components exist.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites these additional elements. These additional elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
sub-dialogue units
output generation module
natural language understanding module.
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea that do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites:
wherein the output generation module of at least one background sub-dialogue unit is a natural language generation module.
The additional limitations of the claim do not preclude the method from practically being performed in the mind. For example,
“wherein the output generation module of at least one background sub-dialogue unit is a natural language generation module” in the context of this claim encompasses a person ensuring the generic computer components exist.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites these additional elements. These additional elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
sub-dialogue units
output generation module
natural language understanding module.
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea that do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites:
wherein the list of predetermined intents associated with the active sub-dialogue unit is different from the list of predetermined intents associated with the background sub-dialogue unit.
The additional limitations of the claim do not preclude the method from practically being performed in the mind. For example,
“wherein the list of predetermined intents associated with the active sub-dialogue unit is different from the list of predetermined intents associated with the background sub-dialogue unit” in the context of this claim encompasses a person ensuring the generic computer components exist.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites these additional elements. These additional elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
sub-dialogue units.
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea that do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites:
wherein at least one sub-dialogue unit is a risk sub-dialogue unit comprising:
a natural language understanding module configured to receive the input from the user and, if present within the input, identify an intent indicating a risk;
a sub-dialogue planning module configured to determine an output based, at least in part, on the identified intent indicating a risk; and
an output generation module configured to provide the output to the user as facilitated by the adjudicator.
The additional limitations of the claim do not preclude the method from practically being performed in the mind. For example,
“a natural language understanding module configured to receive the input from the user and, if present within the input, identify an intent indicating a risk” in the context of this claim encompasses a person listening and determining risk,
“a sub-dialogue planning module configured to determine an output based, at least in part, on the identified intent indicating a risk” in the context of this claim encompasses a person deciding how to respond,
“an output generation module configured to provide the output to the user as facilitated by the adjudicator” in the context of this claim encompasses a person responding.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites these additional elements. These additional elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
sub-dialogue units
planning module
output generation module
the adjudicator
natural language understanding module.
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea that do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites:
wherein the risk sub-dialogue unit is further configured to take an action, and wherein the action is based, at least on part, on the identified risk.
The additional limitations of the claim do not preclude the method from practically being performed in the mind. For example,
“wherein the risk sub-dialogue unit is further configured to take an action, and wherein the action is based, at least on part, on the identified risk” in the context of this claim encompasses a person acting based on the risk.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites these additional elements. These additional elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
sub-dialogue units.
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea that do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites:
comprising at least one background sub-dialogue unit which is configured to receive each input.
The additional limitations of the claim do not preclude the method from practically being performed in the mind. For example,
“comprising at least one background sub-dialogue unit which is configured to receive each input” in the context of this claim encompasses a person listening.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites these additional elements. These additional elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
sub-dialogue units.
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea that do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites:
wherein at least one sub-dialogue unit is an orchestrator.
The additional limitations of the claim do not preclude the method from practically being performed in the mind. For example,
“wherein at least one sub-dialogue unit is an orchestrator” in the context of this claim encompasses a person ensuring the generic computer components exist.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites these additional elements. These additional elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
sub-dialogue units
an orchestrator.
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea that do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 12-14 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tamblyn et al. (US Patent Pub. No. 20170324868 A1), hereinafter Tamblyn.
Regarding claims 1 and 12, Tamblyn teaches a computer-implemented method and a conversational agent (Tamblyn in [0100] teaches using a computer equipped with a processor or central processing unit (CPU), which executes program instructions and interacts with other system components to perform various methods and operations for automated chat communications)
[claim 12 only] the conversational agent comprising:
comprising:
receiving an input from a user (Tamblyn in [0100] teaches receiving input from the end user);
[claim 12 only] an active sub-dialogue unit comprising:
simultaneously analysing the input using a natural language understanding module of an active sub-dialogue unit and a natural language understanding module of at least one background sub-dialogue unit (Tamblyn in [0090-0096, Fig 2A] teaches using multiple different chat bots to process the user input, (202a-c)),
PNG
media_image1.png
554
878
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein each natural language understanding module is configured to identify, if present within the input, at least one intent from a list of predetermined intents associated with the corresponding sub-dialogue unit (Tamblyn in [0109-0111] teaches using based on identification information of the end user, previous communication history (e.g., with the business or on a third party platform such as a social networking website) of the end user, and/or the purpose or topic for the communication, the default chat bot 202a may select a particular chat bot 202b having a profile that is deemed to be compatible with the profile of the end user);
identifying each sub-dialogue unit comprising a natural language understanding module that has identified an intent (Tamblyn in [0093-0113] teaches the chat bot includes a text analytics module, a dialog manager, and an output generator; responses may be categorized based on topics (determined using a suitable text analytics and topic detection scheme); and, various conversation paths or scripts that it may follow based on, for example, the customer intent);
[claim 12 only] an adjudicator (Tamblyn in [0093-0113] teaches the chat bot includes a text analytics module, a dialog manager, and an output generator; responses may be categorized based on topics (determined using a suitable text analytics and topic detection scheme); and, various conversation paths or scripts that it may follow based on, for example, the customer intent)
determining which one of the identified sub-dialogue units meets a predetermined criterion; selecting the sub-dialogue unit that meets the predetermined criterion (Tamblyn in [0111-0117] teaches when a selected profile or personality is determined to not be a good match for a particular customer or particular type of customer, communications may be redirected to a different chat bot with a different personality or profile; and, identify or calculate a confidence level of the purpose of the communication from among of plurality of different possible communications purposes or paths 212a-212c that are predetermined);
[claim 12 only] select the sub-dialogue unit that meets the predetermined criterion such that only the selected sub-dialogue unit determines and provides an output to the user in response to each input (Tamblyn in [0107] teaches the output generator takes the semantic representation of the response provided by the dialog manager, maps the response to a chat bot profile or personality (e.g., by adjusting the language of the response according to the dialect, vocabulary, or personality of the chat bot), and outputs an outbound text to be displayed at the end user device).
determining an output using a sub-dialogue planning module of the selected sub-dialogue unit, wherein the output is based, at least in part, on the at least one identified intent (Tamblyn in [0104] teaches responses may be categorized based on topics (determined using a suitable text analytics and topic detection scheme));
and
providing the output to the user using an output generation module of the selected sub- dialogue unit intent (Tamblyn in [0107] teaches outputting an outbound text to be displayed at the end user device).
Regarding claim 13, Tamblyn teaches the conversational agent according to claim 12.
Tamblyn teaches the output generation module, and the sub-dialogue units.
Tamblyn further teaches
wherein the output generation module of the active sub-dialogue unit is a natural language generation module (Tamblyn in [0103] teaches dialog manager selects a response deemed to be appropriate at the particular point of the conversation flow/script, and outputs the response to the output generator).
Regarding claim 14, Tamblyn teaches the conversational agent according to claim 12.
Tamblyn teaches the output generation module, and the sub-dialogue units.
Tamblyn further teaches
wherein the output generation module of at least one background sub-dialogue unit is a natural language generation module (Tamblyn in [0103] teaches dialog manager selects a response deemed to be appropriate at the particular point of the conversation flow/script, and outputs the response to the output generator).
Regarding claim 19, Tamblyn teaches the conversational agent according to claim 12.
Tamblyn teaches the list of predetermined intents, and the sub-dialogue units.
Tamblyn further teaches
comprising at least one background sub-dialogue unit (Tamblyn in [0090-0096, Fig 2A] teaches using multiple different chat bots to process the user input, (202a-c))
which is configured to receive each input (Tamblyn in [0100] teaches receiving input from the end user).
Regarding claim 20, Tamblyn teaches the conversational agent according to claim 12.
Tamblyn teaches the list of predetermined intents, and the sub-dialogue units.
Tamblyn further teaches
wherein at least one sub-dialogue unit is an orchestrator (Tamblyn in [0085] teaches the chat automation server may operate as a chat orchestration server, dispatching actual chat conversations to various chat bots or agent chats).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 2, 3 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tamblyn, in view of Jalaluddin et al. (US Patent Pub. No. 20220230000 A1), hereinafter Jalaluddin.
Regarding claim 2, Tamblyn teaches the computer-implemented method according to claim 1.
Tamblyn further teaches
wherein determining which one of the identified sub-dialogue units meets the predetermined criterion consists of one of:
determining which one of the identified sub-dialogue units is the active sub-dialogue unit (Tamblyn in [0129] teaches identifying available chat bots).
Tamblyn teaches the sub-dialogue units.
Tamblyn does not teach, however Jalaluddin teaches
assigning a predetermined priority value to each [sub-dialogue unit] and determining the identified [sub-dialogue unit] having the highest priority value (Jalaluddin in [0105] teaches determining priorities and selecting based on the highest priority);
and
determining a confidence value for each [sub-dialogue unit], wherein the confidence value indicates how confident the corresponding natural language understanding module is in its identification of the intent, and determining the identified [sub-dialogue unit] having the highest confidence value (Jalaluddin in [0113] teaches determining confidence scores and selecting based on the highest confidence score, and in [0016] teaches the first skill comprises generating one or more average probability values for each skill based on the probability values associated with the intent classification datasets and selecting a skill associated with a highest average probability value from among the one or more average probability values).
Jalaluddin is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of chatbots. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Tamblyn further in view of Jalaluddin to allow for determining priorities and confidences for selecting a chatbot. Motivation to do so would allow for the introduction of contextually determined intent data to be factored into the final selection of a chatbot (Jalaluddin [0039]).
Regarding claim 3, Tamblyn teaches the computer-implemented method according to claim 1.
Tamblyn further teaches
wherein determining which one of the identified sub-dialogue units meets the predetermined criterion comprises:
determining which one of the identified sub-dialogue units is the active sub-dialogue unit (Tamblyn in [0129] teaches identifying available chat bots).
Tamblyn teaches the sub-dialogue units.
Tamblyn does not teach, however Jalaluddin teaches
calculating an overall score for each identified [sub-dialogue unit] (Jalaluddin in [0134] teaches determining an average score from multiple scores),
wherein the overall score is calculated based on at least one of:
assigning a predetermined priority value to each [sub-dialogue unit] (Jalaluddin in [0105] teaches determining priorities and selecting based on the highest priority);
and
determining a confidence value for each [sub-dialogue unit], wherein the confidence value indicates how confident the corresponding natural language understanding module is in its identification of the intent; and selecting the [sub-dialogue unit] having the highest overall score (Jalaluddin in [0113] teaches determining confidence scores and selecting based on the highest confidence score, and in [0016] teaches the first skill comprises generating one or more average probability values for each skill based on the probability values associated with the intent classification datasets and selecting a skill associated with a highest average probability value from among the one or more average probability values, and in [0105] teaches determining priorities and selecting based on the highest priority).
Jalaluddin is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of chatbots. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Tamblyn further in view of Jalaluddin to allow for determining priorities and confidences for selecting a chatbot. Motivation to do so would allow for the introduction of contextually determined intent data to be factored into the final selection of a chatbot (Jalaluddin [0039]).
Regarding claim 16, Tamblyn teaches the conversational agent according to claim 12.
Tamblyn teaches the list of predetermined intents, and the sub-dialogue units.
Tamblyn does not teach, however Jalaluddin teaches
wherein the list of predetermined intents associated with the active sub-dialogue unit is different from the list of predetermined intents associated with the background sub-dialogue unit (Jalaluddin in [0065] teaches using multiple distinct intent classification datasets).
Jalaluddin is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of chatbots. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Tamblyn further in view of Jalaluddin to allow for using multiple distinct intent classification datasets. Motivation to do so would allow for the introduction of contextually determined intent data to be factored into the final selection of a chatbot (Jalaluddin [0039]).
Claims 4, 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tamblyn, in view of Krishna et al. (US Patent Pub. No. 20220261711 A1), hereinafter Krishna.
Regarding claim 4, Tamblyn teaches the computer-implemented method according to claim 1.
Tamblyn teaches the sub-dialogue units, and identify an intent.
Tamblyn does not teach, however Krishna teaches
wherein at least one [sub-dialogue unit] is a risk [sub-dialogue unit] comprising a natural language understanding module configured to [identify an intent] indicating a risk (Krishna in [0004] teaches determining a risk and using chatbots, and in [0061] teaches a system using natural language, in spoken and/or text forms).
Krishna is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of chatbots. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Tamblyn further in view of Krishna to allow for determining risk. Motivation to do so would allow for alerts which can relieve some of the burden on team members of continuous vigilance regarding both critical and basic aspects contract delivery, allowing them to rely on the intelligent contract system to keep them apprised and alerted to upcoming due dates and milestones (Krishna [0039]).
Regarding claim 17, Tamblyn teaches the conversational agent according to claim 12.
Tamblyn teaches the natural language understanding module, the sub-dialogue planning module, the output, the output generation module, the adjudicator, and the sub-dialogue units.
Tamblyn further teaches
comprising:
a natural language understanding module configured to receive the input from the user (Tamblyn in [0100] teaches receiving input from the end user, and in [0090-0096, Fig 2A] teaches using multiple different chat bots to process the user input, (202a-c))
a sub-dialogue planning module configured to determine an output based, at least in part, on the identified intent indicating [a risk] (Tamblyn in [0104] teaches responses may be categorized based on topics (determined using a suitable text analytics and topic detection scheme));
and
an output generation module configured to provide the output to the user as facilitated by the adjudicator (Tamblyn in [0107] teaches outputting an outbound text to be displayed at the end user device).
Tamblyn does not teach, however Krishna teaches
wherein at least one sub-dialogue unit is a risk sub-dialogue unit (Krishna in [0004] teaches determining a risk and using chatbots, and in [0061] teaches a system using natural language, in spoken and/or text forms)
and, if present within the input, identify an intent indicating a risk (Krishna in [0004] teaches determining a risk and using chatbots, and in [0061] teaches a system using natural language, in spoken and/or text forms);
Krishna is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of chatbots. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Tamblyn further in view of Krishna to allow for determining risk. Motivation to do so would allow for alerts which can relieve some of the burden on team members of continuous vigilance regarding both critical and basic aspects contract delivery, allowing them to rely on the intelligent contract system to keep them apprised and alerted to upcoming due dates and milestones (Krishna [0039]).
Regarding claim 18, Tamblyn, as modified above, teaches the conversational agent according to claim 17.
Tamblyn, as modified above, teaches the risk sub-dialogue unit, and the estimated severity of the risk.
Tamblyn further teaches
wherein the risk sub-dialogue unit is further configured to
further comprising taking an action, wherein the action is based, at least on part, on the [identified risk] (Tamblyn in [0104] teaches taking actions which may include, for example, responses with answers, additional questions, assignment for a human to assist (e.g., by disambiguating input from the end user), and the like).
Claims 5-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tamblyn, in view of Jalaluddin, in view of Krishna.
Regarding claim 5, Tamblyn, as modified above, teaches the computer-implemented method according to claim 4.
Tamblyn further teaches
further comprising:
receiving an input from a user (Tamblyn in [0100] teaches receiving input from the end user),
selecting the [risk sub-dialogue unit] (Tamblyn in [0109-0111] teaches using based on identification information of the end user, previous communication history (e.g., with the business or on a third party platform such as a social networking website) of the end user, and/or the purpose or topic for the communication, the default chat bot 202a may select a particular chat bot 202b having a profile that is deemed to be compatible with the profile of the end user);
wherein the output is based, at least in part, on the intent indicating a [risk] (Tamblyn in [0104] teaches responses may be categorized based on topics (determined using a suitable text analytics and topic detection scheme));
and
providing the output to the user using an output generation module of the [risk sub-dialogue unit] (Tamblyn in [0107] teaches outputting an outbound text to be displayed at the end user device).
Tamblyn, as modified above, teaches the sub-dialogue units, and identify an intent.
Tamblyn, as modified above, does not teach, however Jalaluddin teaches
assigning a predetermined priority value to each [sub-dialogue unit] (Jalaluddin in [0105] teaches determining priorities and selecting based on the highest priority),
determining that the [risk sub-dialogue unit] is the identified [sub-dialogue unit] having the highest priority value (Jalaluddin in [0105] teaches determining priorities and selecting based on the highest priority);
determining an output using a sub-dialogue planning module of the [risk sub-dialogue unit] (Jalaluddin in [0065] teaches using a CRM bot for performing functions related to customer relationship management (CRM), an ERP bot for performing functions related to enterprise resource planning (ERP), an HCM bot for performing functions related to human capital management (HCM), etc.).
Jalaluddin is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of chatbots. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Tamblyn, as modified above, further in view of Jalaluddin to allow for determining priorities and confidences for selecting a chatbot. Motivation to do so would allow for the introduction of contextually determined intent data to be factored into the final selection of a chatbot (Jalaluddin [0039]).
Tamblyn, as modified above, teaches the sub-dialogue units, priority values, and identify an intent.
Tamblyn, as modified above, does not teach, however Krishna teaches
wherein the risk [sub- dialogue unit] is assigned the [highest priority value] (Krishna in [0004] teaches determining a risk and using chatbots, and in [0061] teaches a system using natural language, in spoken and/or text forms);
wherein the input comprises an [intent] indicating a risk (Krishna in [0004] teaches determining a risk and using chatbots, and in [0061] teaches a system using natural language, in spoken and/or text forms);
identifying each [sub-dialogue unit] having a natural language understanding module that has identified an [intent] (Krishna in [0004] teaches determining a risk and using chatbots, and in [0061] teaches a system using natural language, in spoken and/or text forms).
Krishna is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of chatbots. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Tamblyn, as modified above, further in view of Krishna to allow for determining risk. Motivation to do so would allow for alerts which can relieve some of the burden on team members of continuous vigilance regarding both critical and basic aspects contract delivery, allowing them to rely on the intelligent contract system to keep them apprised and alerted to upcoming due dates and milestones (Krishna [0039]).
Regarding claim 6, Tamblyn, as modified above, teaches the computer-implemented method according to claim 5.
Tamblyn, as modified above, teaches the output, the intent, the risk, and the input.
Tamblyn, as modified above, does not teach, however Krishna teaches
wherein the [output] is configured to confirm the presence of the [intent] indicating a [risk] within the [input] (Krishna in [0069] teaches receiving feedback via the computing device regarding an accuracy of the first risk category classification of the one clause, and automatically retraining the specificity model based on the received feedback).
Krishna is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of chatbots. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Tamblyn, as modified above, further in view of Krishna to allow for using feedback. Motivation to do so would allow for alerts which can relieve some of the burden on team members of continuous vigilance regarding both critical and basic aspects contract delivery, allowing them to rely on the intelligent contract system to keep them apprised and alerted to upcoming due dates and milestones (Krishna [0039]).
Regarding claim 7, Tamblyn, as modified above, teaches the [computer-implemented] method according to claim 6.
Tamblyn, as modified above, teaches the output, the intent, the risk, and the input.
Tamblyn, as modified above, does not teach, however Krishna teaches
further comprising:
receiving, in response to the [output], a reply from the user confirming the presence of the [intent] indicating a [risk] (Krishna in [0069] teaches receiving feedback via the computing device regarding an accuracy of the first risk category classification of the one clause, and automatically retraining the specificity model based on the received feedback).
Krishna is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of chatbots. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Tamblyn, as modified above, further in view of Krishna to allow for using feedback. Motivation to do so would allow for alerts which can relieve some of the burden on team members of continuous vigilance regarding both critical and basic aspects contract delivery, allowing them to rely on the intelligent contract system to keep them apprised and alerted to upcoming due dates and milestones (Krishna [0039]).
Regarding claim 8, Tamblyn, as modified above, teaches the [computer-implemented] method according to claim 7.
Tamblyn, as modified above, teaches the output generation module, the sub-dialogue units, the intent, the risk, and the input.
Tamblyn, as modified above, does not teach, however Krishna teaches
further comprising:
providing, using the [output generation module] of the [risk sub-dialogue unit], at least one subsequent [output] to the user, wherein at least one subsequent [output] is configured to determine the severity of the risk associated with the [intent] indicating a [risk] (Krishna in [0069] teaches the service can be implemented to classify clauses that are associated with a higher level of risk).
Krishna is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of chatbots. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Tamblyn, as modified above, further in view of Krishna to allow for using feedback. Motivation to do so would allow for alerts which can relieve some of the burden on team members of continuous vigilance regarding both critical and basic aspects contract delivery, allowing them to rely on the intelligent contract system to keep them apprised and alerted to upcoming due dates and milestones (Krishna [0039]).
Regarding claim 9, Tamblyn, as modified above, teaches the [computer-implemented] method according to claim 8.
Tamblyn, as modified above, teaches the reply from the user, the input, and the severity of the risk.
Tamblyn, as modified above, does not teach, however Krishna teaches
further comprising:
receiving at least one subsequent [reply from the user] (Krishna in [0069] teaches receiving feedback via the computing device regarding an accuracy of the first risk category classification of the one clause, and automatically retraining the specificity model based on the received feedback [this can be repeated to obtain the second reply]);
and
estimating the [severity of the risk] based, at least in part, on the [input], [reply] and/or at least one subsequent [reply] (Krishna in [0069] teaches the service can be implemented to classify clauses that are associated with a higher level of risk [this can be repeated to obtain risk based on this alternate data]).
Krishna is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of chatbots. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Tamblyn, as modified above, further in view of Krishna to allow for using feedback. Motivation to do so would allow for alerts which can relieve some of the burden on team members of continuous vigilance regarding both critical and basic aspects contract delivery, allowing them to rely on the intelligent contract system to keep them apprised and alerted to upcoming due dates and milestones (Krishna [0039]).
Regarding claim 10, Tamblyn, as modified above, teaches the [computer-implemented] method according to claim 9.
Tamblyn, as modified above, teaches the risk sub-dialogue unit, and the estimated severity of the risk.
Tamblyn further teaches
further comprising taking an action, wherein the action is based, at least on part, on the [estimated severity of the risk] (Tamblyn in [0104] teaches taking actions which may include, for example, responses with answers, additional questions, assignment for a human to assist (e.g., by disambiguating input from the end user), and the like).
Claims 11 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tamblyn, in view of Gao (US Patent Pub. No. 20230274091 A1).
Regarding claims 11 and 15, Tamblyn teaches the [computer-implemented] method and conversational agent according to claims 1 and 12.
Tamblyn teaches the natural language understanding modules, the sub-dialogue units, the input, and the output.
Tamblyn does not teach, however Gao teaches
wherein each [natural language understanding module] [claim 15 only: of at least one sub-dialogue unit] is further configured to identify, where present, at least one slot within the [input]; and wherein the corresponding [output], if determined, is based, at least in part, on the at least one identified slot (Gao in [0059] teaches the input device of the HMI receives a second input from the user and again transmits that second input to the associated processing device. The processing device determines, the intent of the second input by again utilizing the language model, for example. The language model will determine, based on its neural network or machine-learning structure, the most likely or probable intent of the second input. And, the dialogue system determines whether the intent of the second (latest) input has slot-filling intent. If the intent of the latest input does have slot-filling intent, then the system fills the associated slot with the information from the second input. For example, if the user simply responds “I'll have pepperoni” to the first chatbot response, then the pizza topping slot can be filled with information indicating the user wants pepperoni as the topping. If, however, the intent of the latest input does not have slot-filling intent, then the system proceeds. Given the example Q&A session above, the second input may be “Do you have margarita pizza?” This latest input does not have any slot-filling intent, i.e., the machine-learning model does not recognize this second input to be an appropriate response to fill the pizza topping slot. In this case, the intent of the latest input may be a desire to ask what toppings are available. Therefore, the dialogue system responds with an output associated with the intent of the latest input. In the Q&A session above, this is represented by the second chatbot response: “We have cheese, pepperoni, meat lovers, and vegetarian pizza,” which is associate with the determined intent of the second input).
Gao is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of chatbots. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Tamblyn further in view of Gao to allow for using slots. Motivation to do so would allow for the user to provide an utterance that would help fill the food-preference slot, thus providing a more accurate answer than if such information was not provided (Gao [0038]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL J. MUELLER whose telephone number is (571)272-1875. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00am-5:00pm (Eastern).
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, Daniel C. Washburn can be reached at 571-272-5551. 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.
PAUL MUELLER
Examiner
Art Unit 2657
/PAUL J. MUELLER/Examiner, Art Unit 2657
Prosecution Insights