CTNF 18/883,994 CTNF 83977 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Double Patenting 08-33 AIA The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg , 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman , 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi , 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum , 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel , 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington , 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA/25, or PTO/AIA/26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer. Patent (US 12,112,760) Instant Application (18/883,994) 1. A method implemented by one or more processors, the method comprising: receiving, from a user device, a request comprising a first voice input; submitting the request to each of a plurality of distinct data providers, wherein each data provider is associated with a distinct data model, and wherein the plurality of distinct data providers includes (i) a task provider that directs a dialog toward information used to complete a task and (ii) a search provider; in response to the first voice input, receiving at least one suggested response to the first voice input from at least one of the plurality of distinct data providers; determining, from the at least one suggested response to the first voice input, a first dialog including one or more responses to the first voice input to provide to the user device to complete the first dialog; receiving, from the user device, a second voice input in response to providing the one or more responses to the first voice input to the user device, and submitting the second voice input to each of the plurality of distinct data providers; in response to the second voice input, receiving suggested responses to the second voice input from two or more of the plurality of distinct data providers, the suggested responses to the second voice input including a suggested response to the second voice input from the search provider and a suggested response to the second voice input from the task provider, the suggested response to the second voice input from the task provider being based on the suggested response to the second voice input from the search provider; for each suggested response to the second voice input, determining a respective score associated with the suggested response; selecting, from the suggested responses to the second voice input, a response to the second voice input based on the respective scores associated with the suggested responses to the second voice input; and providing the response to the second voice input to the user device. 1. A method implemented by one or more processors, the method comprising: receiving, from a user device, one or more requests comprising one or more voice inputs; submitting one or more of the requests to each of a plurality of distinct data providers, wherein each data provider is associated with a distinct data model, and wherein the plurality of distinct data providers includes (i) a task provider that directs a dialog toward information used to complete a task and (ii) a search provider; in response to the one or more voice inputs, receiving a plurality of responses to the one or more voice inputs from two or more of the distinct data providers including the task provider and the search provider; processing the plurality of responses to the one or more voice inputs to generate a unified dialog response that includes at least some content from each of two or more of the plurality of responses; generating a natural language output that corresponds to the unified dialog response; providing the natural language output to the user device; and performing the task in response to completing the dialog . Claims 1, 8 and 15 of the instant application are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1, 9 and 15 of patent US 12,112,760. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the reference Cristo (US 2007/0033005 A1) discloses “processing the plurality of responses to the one or more voice inputs to generate a unified dialog response” (para. [0206]-[0207]) , “generating a natural language output that corresponds to the unified dialog response” (para. [0206]-[0207]), “providing the natural language output to the user device” (para. [0206]-[0207]) and “performing the task in response to completing the dialog” (para. [0203]; para. [0207]). It would have been obvious to implement the missing features of the instant application, as taught by reference Cristo for all the reasons described by the reference such as providing a user with the best possible response to the user’s query while improving accuracy (Cristo, para. [0090]; para. [0166]). Patent (US 11,727,941) Instant Application (18/883,994) 1. A method comprising: receiving a request, from a user device, associated with performance of a first task, wherein the request comprises a first voice input of a user of the user device; submitting the request to each of a plurality of distinct data providers, wherein each data provider is associated with a distinct data model configured to interpret particular types of voice inputs, and wherein the plurality of distinct data providers includes (i) a task data provider that directs a dialog toward information used to complete a task and (ii) a search data provider; in response to the first voice input, receiving a first plurality of suggested dialog responses to the first voice input from two or more of the data providers; determining, from the first plurality of suggested dialog responses, a dialog intent of the first voice input and a corresponding first dialog for the first task including one or more first dialog responses to provide to the user device to complete the first dialog for the first task; receiving a second voice input in response to providing the one or more first dialog responses to the user and submitting the second voice input to each of the plurality of data providers; receiving a second plurality of suggested dialog responses to the second voice input from two or more of the data providers, the second plurality of suggested dialog responses including a first suggested dialog response from the search data provider and a first suggested dialog response from the task data provider, the first suggested dialog response from the task data provider being based on the first suggested dialog response from the search data provider; for each dialog response of the second plurality of suggested dialog responses, determining a respective score associated with the dialog response; determining a second dialog response based on the respective scores associated with the second plurality of suggested dialog responses, the second dialog response being based on both the first suggested dialog response from the search data provider and the first suggested dialog response from the task data provider; and providing the second dialog response to the user device. 1. A method implemented by one or more processors, the method comprising: receiving, from a user device, one or more requests comprising one or more voice inputs; submitting one or more of the requests to each of a plurality of distinct data providers, wherein each data provider is associated with a distinct data model, and wherein the plurality of distinct data providers includes (i) a task provider that directs a dialog toward information used to complete a task and (ii) a search provider; in response to the one or more voice inputs, receiving a plurality of responses to the one or more voice inputs from two or more of the distinct data providers including the task provider and the search provider; processing the plurality of responses to the one or more voice inputs to generate a unified dialog response that includes at least some content from each of two or more of the plurality of responses; generating a natural language output that corresponds to the unified dialog response; providing the natural language output to the user device; and performing the task in response to completing the dialog Claims 1, 8 and 15 of the instant application are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1, 5 and 9 of patent US 11,727,941 B2. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the reference Cristo (US 2007/0033005 A1) discloses “processing the plurality of responses to the one or more voice inputs to generate a unified dialog response” (para. [0206]-[0207]) , “generating a natural language output that corresponds to the unified dialog response” (para. [0206]-[0207]), “providing the natural language output to the user device” (para. [0206]-[0207]) and “performing the task in response to completing the dialog” (para. [0203]; para. [0207]). It would have been obvious to implement the missing features of the instant application, as taught by reference Cristo for all the reasons described by the reference such as providing a user with the best possible response to the user’s query while improving accuracy (Cristo, para. [0090]; para. [0166]). Patent (US 11,120,806 B2) Instant Application (18/883,994) 1. A method comprising: receiving at a dialog system a request, from a user device, associated with performance of a first task, wherein the request comprises a first voice input of a user of the user device; submitting the request to each of a plurality of distinct data providers, wherein each data provider is associated with a distinct data model configured to interpret particular types of voice inputs; in response to the first voice input, receiving a first plurality of suggested dialog responses to the first voice input from two or more of the data providers; determining, from the first plurality of suggested dialog responses, a dialog intent of the first voice input and a corresponding first dialog for the first task including one or more first dialog responses to provide to the user device to complete the first dialog for the first task; receiving at the dialog system a second voice input in response to providing the one or more first dialog responses to the user and submitting the second voice input to each of the plurality of data providers; receiving a second plurality of suggested dialog responses to the second voice input from two or more of the data providers; in response to one of the second plurality of suggested dialog responses of a second data provider, receiving, from a first data provider, an augmented response that includes a modification or addition based on a disambiguation of an entity, the disambiguation of the entity being included in the suggested dialog response that is provided by the second data provider; and determining a second dialog response including determining a combined response including the suggested dialog response of the second data provider and the augmented response of the first data provider and providing the combined response to the user device. 1. A method implemented by one or more processors, the method comprising: receiving, from a user device, one or more requests comprising one or more voice inputs; submitting one or more of the requests to each of a plurality of distinct data providers, wherein each data provider is associated with a distinct data model, and wherein the plurality of distinct data providers includes (i) a task provider that directs a dialog toward information used to complete a task and (ii) a search provider ; in response to the one or more voice inputs, receiving a plurality of responses to the one or more voice inputs from two or more of the distinct data providers including the task provider and the search provider; processing the plurality of responses to the one or more voice inputs to generate a unified dialog response that includes at least some content from each of two or more of the plurality of responses; generating a natural language output that corresponds to the unified dialog response; providing the natural language output to the user device; and performing the task in response to completing the dialog Claims 1, 8 and 15 of the instant application are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1, 9 and 15 of patent US 11,120,806 B2. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the reference Cristo (US 2007/0033005 A1) discloses “ wherein the plurality of distinct data providers includes (i) a task provider that directs a dialog toward information used to complete a task and (ii) a search provider ;” (para. [0094]; para. [0098]; para. [0105]-[0108]) , “generating a natural language output that corresponds to the unified dialog response” (para. [0206]-[0207]), “providing the natural language output to the user device” (para. [0206]-[0207]) and “performing the task in response to completing the dialog” (para. [0203]; para. [0207]). It would have been obvious to implement the missing features of the instant application, as taught by reference Cristo for all the reasons described by the reference such as providing a user with the best possible response to the user’s query while improving accuracy (Cristo, para. [0090]; para. [0166]). Patent (US 10,255,921 B2) Instant Application (18/883,994) 1. A method comprising: receiving a request, from a user device, made by a user to perform a task, wherein the request comprises a voice input of a user of the user device; determining a dialog associated with the task, wherein the dialog has a particular state; submitting the voice input of the request to each of a plurality of distinct data providers, wherein each data provider is associated with a distinct data model configured to interpret particular types of voice inputs; in response to the voice input, receiving a plurality of suggested dialog responses to the voice input from two or more of the data providers including a first data provider and a second data provider, wherein the first data provider determines whether to change a first suggested dialog response of the first data provider that is responsive to the voice input of the request based on a second suggested dialog response of the second data provider that is responsive to the voice input of the request, wherein the determination of the first data provider occurs prior to providing a voice response to the voice input to the user device, and wherein each of the plurality of suggested dialog responses is associated with a respective context; scoring the plurality of suggested dialog responses to generate a respective score for each suggested dialog response based on one or more scoring factors including the respective contexts for the plurality of suggested dialog responses; determining, from the plurality of suggested dialog responses, a particular dialog response to provide to the user responsive to the voice input of the request based on the scoring; synthesizing a voice response that corresponds to the determined dialog response; providing the voice response to the user device; and performing the task in response to completing the dialog. 1. A method implemented by one or more processors, the method comprising: receiving, from a user device, one or more requests comprising one or more voice inputs; submitting one or more of the requests to each of a plurality of distinct data providers, wherein each data provider is associated with a distinct data model, and wherein the plurality of distinct data providers includes (i) a task provider that directs a dialog toward information used to complete a task and (ii) a search provider ; in response to the one or more voice inputs, receiving a plurality of responses to the one or more voice inputs from two or more of the distinct data providers including the task provider and the search provider; processing the plurality of responses to the one or more voice inputs to generate a unified dialog response that includes at least some content from each of two or more of the plurality of responses; generating a natural language output that corresponds to the unified dialog response; providing the natural language output to the user device; and performing the task in response to completing the dialog Claims 1, 3-5, 8, 10-12, 15, and 17-19 of the instant application are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1, 6-8, 14-16 and 21 of patent US *Us 10,255,921 B2. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the reference Cristo (US 2007/0033005 A1) discloses “ wherein the plurality of distinct data providers includes (i) a task provider that directs a dialog toward information used to complete a task and (ii) a search provider ;” (para. [0094]; para. [0098]; para. [0105]-[0108]) and “generating a natural language output that corresponds to the unified dialog response” (para. [0206]-[0207]). It would have been obvious to implement the missing features of the instant application, as taught by reference Cristo for all the reasons described by the reference such as providing a user with the best possible response to the user’s query while improving accuracy (Cristo, para. [0090]; para. [0166]). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-01 AIA 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 2-5, 9-12 and 16-19 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. In particular, claims, 2, 9 and 16 recite “select[ing], from the plurality responses and the unified dialog response, the unified dialog response based on the respective scores associated with the plurality of responses”. There is no disclosure of this limitation in the instant original specification or in the original specification of the parent applications . Paragraph [0006] of the instant specification describes receiving parallel responses from the different data providers and optionally aggregating the received responses or combining the responses from the data providers into a unified dialog response, but not selecting from the plurality responses and the unified dialog response . The dependent claims are rejected based on their dependency Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-15 AIA 1. Claim s 1-4, 6-11, 13-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by Cristo et al US 2007/0033005 A1 (“Cristo” - IDS) Per claim 1 , Cristo discloses a method implemented by one or more processors, the method comprising: receiving, from a user device, one or more requests comprising one or more voice inputs (fig.1; capturing the user's questions and/or requests through speech recognition components that operate in a variety of real-world environments …, para. [0020]; para. [0035]; para. [0095]; para. [0102]-[0103]); submitting one or more of the requests to each of a plurality of distinct data providers, wherein each data provider is associated with a distinct data model, and wherein the plurality of distinct data providers includes (i) a task provider that directs a dialog toward information used to complete a task and (ii) a search provider (Based on this determination, the system may trigger one or more agents to respond to the user's question or command…., para. [0035]; Agents 106 may include a collection of grammars, criteria handlers, and algorithms that are accessed to respond to a set of requests and/or commands, para. [0094]; Knowledge agents may be selected from the plurality of agents 106 using a grammar stack, wherein the knowledge agents provide information for generating a response to the question or command.…, para. [0098]; system 90 may include different types of agents 106…., para. [0105]; Both system agents 150 and domain agents 156 may receive questions and commands from the parser 118.…, para. [0106]-[0108]; para. [0171]; para. [0179]; para. [0201]); in response to the one or more voice inputs, receiving a plurality of responses to the one or more voice inputs from two or more of the distinct data providers including the task provider and the search provider (para. [0023]- [0024]; para. [0035]; knowledge agents may return results of questions as responses. para. [0099]; para. [0206]-[0207]); processing the plurality of responses to the one or more voice inputs to generate a unified dialog response that includes at least some content from each of two or more of the plurality of responses (In some cases, the available information, including the request results, may not adequately answer the questions presented. In such situations, the user may be asked one or more follow-up questions to resolve the ambiguity. Additional requests may then be made before an adequate response is provided …, para. [0035]; para. [0183]-[0184]; As a result of the execution of the queries, results may be returned by the domain agents and/or sources. The system 90 may then extract or scrape the desired information from the one or more results …, para. [0206]; Next, the results may be evaluated and interpreted including processing of errors, and gathering and combining them into a single best result judged to be "best" …, para. [0207]); generating a natural language output that corresponds to the unified dialog response (para. [0206]; Next, the results may be evaluated and interpreted including processing of errors, and gathering and combining them into a single best result judged to be "best" …, para. [0207]); providing the natural language output to the user device (para. [0206]; Next, the results may be evaluated and interpreted including processing of errors, and gathering and combining them into a single best result judged to be "best" … Finally, at operation 420, the compound results may be presented to the user …, para. [0207]); and performing the task in response to completing the dialog (In the case of a query for retrieving data, the response would contain the requested information. In the case of a command, the response may be a confirmation that a specific action[s] has been executed. The response may be in the form of a natural language format…., para. [0203]; para. [0206]). Per claim 2 , Cristo discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: determining a respective score associated with each of the plurality of responses to the one or more voice inputs from two or more of the distinct data providers (The domain agent 156 evaluates the results of the one or more queries as they arrive. The domain agent 156 scores the relevance of the results based on results already received, the context, the criteria, the history of the dialog, the user profile 110 and domain specific information using probabilistic or fuzzy scoring techniques…., para. [0182]; As a result of the execution of the queries, results may be returned by the domain agents and/or sources…., para. [0206]); and selecting, from the plurality responses and the unified dialog response, the unified dialog response based on the respective scores associated with the plurality of responses (Duplicate queries are sent to different information sources to ensure that at least one source responds with a useful result in a timely manner. Further, if multiple results are received in a timely manner, they can be scored by the system to determine which data is most reliable or appropriate …, para. [0180-[0181]; The domain agent 156 evaluates the results of the one or more queries as they arrive. The domain agent 156 scores the relevance of the results based on results already received, the context, the criteria, the history of the dialog, the user profile 110 and domain specific information using probabilistic or fuzzy scoring techniques…., [0182]; para. [0206]; the results may be evaluated and interpreted including processing of errors, and gathering and combining them into a single best result judged to be "best" even if the results are ambiguous, incomplete, or conflicting at 416. Once the best results are determined, any required formatting is performed. At operation 418, variable substitutions and transformations may be used to modify the results. Finally, at operation 420, the compound results may be presented to the user …, para. [0207]). Per claim 3 , Cristo discloses the method of claim 2, wherein in response to determining that none of the respective scores for the plurality of responses satisfy a threshold amount, synthesizing a response to provide to the user device to ascertain an intent of the user (para. [0035]; If the confidence level of the domain or context score is not high enough to ensure a reliable response, the system may request that the user verify that the question or command is correctly understood. In general, the question may be phrased to indicate the context of the question including all criteria or parameters. If the user confirms that the question is correct, the system may proceed to produce a response. Otherwise, either the user can rephrase the original question …, para. [0036]; para. [0099]; para. [0122]). Per claim 4 , Cristo discloses the method of claim 2, wherein the selecting includes disqualifying one of the plurality of responses having a score that is lower than a threshold amount (Based on the continuous scoring processes, the domain agent 156 may determine if a single best answer can be extracted … For subjective questions, this determination is made by determining a most likely answer or answers... para. [0183], determining best result/most likely result as disqualifying results below threshold (i.e. not best/most likely ). Per claim 6 , Cristo discloses the method of claim 1, wherein generating the natural language output comprises synthesizing a voice output that corresponds to the natural language output (para. [0203]). Per claim 7 , Cristo discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the natural language output is rendered on a display (para. [0203]). Per claim 8 , Cristo discloses a system comprising one or more processors and memory storing instructions that, in response to execution by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to: receive, from a user device, one or more requests comprising one or more voice inputs (fig.1; capturing the user's questions and/or requests through speech recognition components that operate in a variety of real-world environments …, para. [0020]; para. [0035]; para. [0095]; para. [0102]-[0103]); submit one or more of the requests to each of a plurality of distinct data providers, wherein each data provider is associated with a distinct data model, and wherein the plurality of distinct data providers includes (i) a task provider that directs a dialog toward information used to complete a task and (ii) a search provider (Based on this determination, the system may trigger one or more agents to respond to the user's question or command…., para. [0035]; Agents 106 may include a collection of grammars, criteria handlers, and algorithms that are accessed to respond to a set of requests and/or commands, para. [0094]; Knowledge agents may be selected from the plurality of agents 106 using a grammar stack, wherein the knowledge agents provide information for generating a response to the question or command.…, para. [0098]; system 90 may include different types of agents 106…., para. [0105]; Both system agents 150 and domain agents 156 may receive questions and commands from the parser 118.…, para. [0106]-[0108]; para. [0171]; para. [0179]; para. [0201]); in response to the one or more voice inputs, receive a plurality of responses to the one or more voice inputs from two or more of the distinct data providers including the task provider and the search provider (para. [0023]- [0024]; para. [0035]; knowledge agents may return results of questions as responses. para. [0099]; para. [0206]-[0207]); process the plurality of responses to the one or more voice inputs to generate a unified dialog response that includes at least some content from each of two or more of the plurality of responses (In some cases, the available information, including the request results, may not adequately answer the questions presented. In such situations, the user may be asked one or more follow-up questions to resolve the ambiguity. Additional requests may then be made before an adequate response is provided …, para. [0035]; para. [0183]-[0184]; As a result of the execution of the queries, results may be returned by the domain agents and/or sources. The system 90 may then extract or scrape the desired information from the one or more results …, para. [0206]; Next, the results may be evaluated and interpreted including processing of errors, and gathering and combining them into a single best result judged to be "best" …, para. [0207]); generate a natural language output that corresponds to the unified dialog response (para. [0206]; Next, the results may be evaluated and interpreted including processing of errors, and gathering and combining them into a single best result judged to be "best" …, para. [0207]); provide the natural language output to the user device (para. [0206]; Next, the results may be evaluated and interpreted including processing of errors, and gathering and combining them into a single best result judged to be "best" … Finally, at operation 420, the compound results may be presented to the user …, para. [0207]); and perform the task in response to completing the dialog (In the case of a query for retrieving data, the response would contain the requested information. In the case of a command, the response may be a confirmation that a specific action[s] has been executed. The response may be in the form of a natural language format…., para. [0203]; para. [0206]). Per claim 9 , Cristo discloses the system of claim 8, further comprising instructions to: determine a respective score associated with each of the plurality of responses to the one or more voice inputs from two or more of the distinct data providers (The domain agent 156 evaluates the results of the one or more queries as they arrive. The domain agent 156 scores the relevance of the results based on results already received, the context, the criteria, the history of the dialog, the user profile 110 and domain specific information using probabilistic or fuzzy scoring techniques…., para. [0182]; As a result of the execution of the queries, results may be returned by the domain agents and/or sources…., para. [0206]); and select, from the plurality responses and the unified dialog response, the unified dialog response based on the respective scores associated with the plurality of responses (Duplicate queries are sent to different information sources to ensure that at least one source responds with a useful result in a timely manner. Further, if multiple results are received in a timely manner, they can be scored by the system to determine which data is most reliable or appropriate …, para. [0180-[0181]; The domain agent 156 evaluates the results of the one or more queries as they arrive. The domain agent 156 scores the relevance of the results based on results already received, the context, the criteria, the history of the dialog, the user profile 110 and domain specific information using probabilistic or fuzzy scoring techniques…., [0182]; para. [0206]; the results may be evaluated and interpreted including processing of errors, and gathering and combining them into a single best result judged to be "best" even if the results are ambiguous, incomplete, or conflicting at 416. Once the best results are determined, any required formatting is performed. At operation 418, variable substitutions and transformations may be used to modify the results. Finally, at operation 420, the compound results may be presented to the user …, para. [0207]). Per claim 10 , Cristo discloses the system of claim 9, further comprising instructions to synthesize a response to provide to the user device to ascertain an intent of the user in response to a determination that none of the respective scores for the plurality of responses satisfy a threshold amount (para. [0035]; If the confidence level of the domain or context score is not high enough to ensure a reliable response, the system may request that the user verify that the question or command is correctly understood. In general, the question may be phrased to indicate the context of the question including all criteria or parameters. If the user confirms that the question is correct, the system may proceed to produce a response. Otherwise, either the user can rephrase the original question …, para. [0036]; para. [0099]; para. [0122]). Per claim 11 , Cristo discloses the system of claim 9, wherein the instructions to select include instructions to disqualify one of the plurality of responses having a score that is lower than a threshold amount (Based on the continuous scoring processes, the domain agent 156 may determine if a single best answer can be extracted … For subjective questions, this determination is made by determining a most likely answer or answers... para. [0183], determining best result/most likely result as disqualifying results below threshold (i.e. not best/most likely ). Per claim 13 , Cristo discloses the system of claim 8, wherein generating the natural language output comprises synthesizing a voice output that corresponds to the natural language output (para. [0203]). Per claim 14 , Cristo discloses the system of claim 8, wherein the natural language output is rendered on a display (para. [0203]). Per claim 15 , Cristo discloses at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions that, in response to execution by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to: receive, from a user device, one or more requests comprising one or more voice inputs (fig.1; capturing the user's questions and/or requests through speech recognition components that operate in a variety of real-world environments …, para. [0020]; para. [0035]; para. [0095]; para. [0102]-[0103]); submit one or more of the requests to each of a plurality of distinct data providers, wherein each data provider is associated with a distinct data model, and wherein the plurality of distinct data providers includes (i) a task provider that directs a dialog toward information used to complete a task and (ii) a search provider (Based on this determination, the system may trigger one or more agents to respond to the user's question or command…., para. [0035]; Agents 106 may include a collection of grammars, criteria handlers, and algorithms that are accessed to respond to a set of requests and/or commands, para. [0094]; Knowledge agents may be selected from the plurality of agents 106 using a grammar stack, wherein the knowledge agents provide information for generating a response to the question or command.…, para. [0098]; system 90 may include different types of agents 106…., para. [0105]; Both system agents 150 and domain agents 156 may receive questions and commands from the parser 118.…, para. [0106]-[0108]; para. [0171]; para. [0179]; para. [0201]); in response to the one or more voice inputs, receive a plurality of responses to the one or more voice inputs from two or more of the distinct data providers including the task provider and the search provider (para. [0023]- [0024]; para. [0035]; knowledge agents may return results of questions as responses. para. [0099]; para. [0206]-[0207]); process the plurality of responses to the one or more voice inputs to generate a unified dialog response that includes at least some content from each of two or more of the plurality of responses (In some cases, the available information, including the request results, may not adequately answer the questions presented. In such situations, the user may be asked one or more follow-up questions to resolve the ambiguity. Additional requests may then be made before an adequate response is provided …, para. [0035]; para. [0183]-[0184]; As a result of the execution of the queries, results may be returned by the domain agents and/or sources. The system 90 may then extract or scrape the desired information from the one or more results …, para. [0206]; Next, the results may be evaluated and interpreted including processing of errors, and gathering and combining them into a single best result judged to be "best" …, para. [0207]); generate a natural language output that corresponds to the unified dialog response (para. [0206]; Next, the results may be evaluated and interpreted including processing of errors, and gathering and combining them into a single best result judged to be "best" …, para. [0207]); provide the natural language output to the user device (para. [0206]; Next, the results may be evaluated and interpreted including processing of errors, and gathering and combining them into a single best result judged to be "best" … Finally, at operation 420, the compound results may be presented to the user …, para. [0207]); and perform the task in response to completing the dialog (In the case of a query for retrieving data, the response would contain the requested information. In the case of a command, the response may be a confirmation that a specific action[s] has been executed. The response may be in the form of a natural language format…., para. [0203]; para. [0206]). Per claim 16 , Cristo discloses the at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 15, further comprising instructions to: determine a respective score associated with each of the plurality of responses to the one or more voice inputs from two or more of the distinct data providers (The domain agent 156 evaluates the results of the one or more queries as they arrive. The domain agent 156 scores the relevance of the results based on results already received, the context, the criteria, the history of the dialog, the user profile 110 and domain specific information using probabilistic or fuzzy scoring techniques…., para. [0182]; As a result of the execution of the queries, results may be returned by the domain agents and/or sources…., para. [0206]); and select, from the plurality responses and the unified dialog response, the unified dialog response based on the respective scores associated with the plurality of responses (Duplicate queries are sent to different information sources to ensure that at least one source responds with a useful result in a timely manner. Further, if multiple results are received in a timely manner, they can be scored by the system to determine which data is most reliable or appropriate …, para. [0180-[0181]; The domain agent 156 evaluates the results of the one or more queries as they arrive. The domain agent 156 scores the relevance of the results based on results already received, the context, the criteria, the history of the dialog, the user profile 110 and domain specific information using probabilistic or fuzzy scoring techniques…., [0182]; para. [0206]; the results may be evaluated and interpreted including processing of errors, and gathering and combining them into a single best result judged to be "best" even if the results are ambiguous, incomplete, or conflicting at 416. Once the best results are determined, any required formatting is performed. At operation 418, variable substitutions and transformations may be used to modify the results. Finally, at operation 420, the compound results may be presented to the user …, para. [0207]). Per claim 17 , Cristo discloses the at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 16, further comprising instructions to synthesize a response to provide to the user device to ascertain an intent of the user in response to a determination that none of the respective scores for the plurality of responses satisfy a threshold amount (para. [0035]; If the confidence level of the domain or context score is not high enough to ensure a reliable response, the system may request that the user verify that the question or command is correctly understood. In general, the question may be phrased to indicate the context of the question including all criteria or parameters. If the user confirms that the question is correct, the system may proceed to produce a response. Otherwise, either the user can rephrase the original question …, para. [0036]; para. [0099]; para. [0122]). Per claim 18 , Cristo discloses the at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 16, wherein the instructions to select include instructions to disqualify one of the plurality of responses having a score that is lower than a threshold amount (Based on the continuous scoring processes, the domain agent 156 may determine if a single best answer can be extracted … For subjective questions, this determination is made by determining a most likely answer or answers... para. [0183], determining best result/most likely result as disqualifying results below threshold (i.e. not best/most likely ). Per claim 20 , Cristo discloses the at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 15, wherein generating the natural language output comprises synthesizing a voice output that corresponds to the natural language output (para. [0203]) . 07-21-aia AIA 2. Claim s 5, 12 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cristo in view of Kennewick et al US PGPUB 2009/0150156 A1 ("Kennewick" - IDS) Per claim 5 , Cristo discloses the method of claim 4, Cristo does not explicitly disclose disqualifying all responses that refer to the one of the plurality of responses having the score that is lower than the threshold amount However, this feature is taught by Kennewick (para. [0018]; In another example, when an interpretation turns out to be incorrect (e.g., a subsequent utterance may be "No, 14th Street Northwest, not Northeast"), the dynamic grammar may be pruned to eliminate information associated with the incorrect interpretation (e.g., information associated with Northeast may be removed). As a result, the optimization operation 370 can reduce overhead, assure that mistakes will not be repeated para. [0069]; para. [0089]) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the instant invention to combine the teachings of Kennewick with the method of Cristo, in arriving at the missing feature of Cristo, because such combination would have resulted in improving accuracy of user input interpretations (Kennewick, para. [0069]). Per claim 12 , Cristo discloses the system of claim 11, System claim 12 and method c laim 5 are related as system and the method of using same, with each claimed element's function corresponding to the claimed method step. Accordingly, claim12 is similarly rejected under the same rationale as applied above with respect to claim 5 . Per claim 19 , Cristo discloses the at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 18 and instructions, Medium claim 19 and method c laim 5 are related as medium and the method of using same, with each claimed element's function corresponding to the claimed method step. Accordingly, claim19 is similarly rejected under the same rationale as applied above with respect to claim 5 . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO 892 form . Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLUJIMI A ADESANYA whose telephone number is (571)270-3307. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30-5:00pm. 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, Richemond Dorvil can be reached at 571-272-7602. 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. /OLUJIMI A ADESANYA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2658 Application/Control Number: 18/883,994 Page 2 Art Unit: 2658 Application/Control Number: 18/883,994 Page 3 Art Unit: 2658 Application/Control Number: 18/883,994 Page 4 Art Unit: 2658 Application/Control Number: 18/883,994 Page 5 Art Unit: 2658 Application/Control Number: 18/883,994 Page 6 Art Unit: 2658 Application/Control Number: 18/883,994 Page 7 Art Unit: 2658 Application/Control Number: 18/883,994 Page 8 Art Unit: 2658 Application/Control Number: 18/883,994 Page 9 Art Unit: 2658 Application/Control Number: 18/883,994 Page 10 Art Unit: 2658 Application/Control Number: 18/883,994 Page 11 Art Unit: 2658 Application/Control Number: 18/883,994 Page 12 Art Unit: 2658 Application/Control Number: 18/883,994 Page 13 Art Unit: 2658 Application/Control Number: 18/883,994 Page 14 Art Unit: 2658 Application/Control Number: 18/883,994 Page 15 Art Unit: 2658 Application/Control Number: 18/883,994 Page 16 Art Unit: 2658 Application/Control Number: 18/883,994 Page 17 Art Unit: 2658 Application/Control Number: 18/883,994 Page 18 Art Unit: 2658 Application/Control Number: 18/883,994 Page 19 Art Unit: 2658 Application/Control Number: 18/883,994 Page 20 Art Unit: 2658 Application/Control Number: 18/883,994 Page 21 Art Unit: 2658 Application/Control Number: 18/883,994 Page 22 Art Unit: 2658 Application/Control Number: 18/883,994 Page 23 Art Unit: 2658 Application/Control Number: 18/883,994 Page 24 Art Unit: 2658 Application/Control Number: 18/883,994 Page 25 Art Unit: 2658 Application/Control Number: 18/883,994 Page 26 Art Unit: 2658 Application/Control Number: 18/883,994 Page 27 Art Unit: 2658 Application/Control Number: 18/883,994 Page 28 Art Unit: 2658 Application/Control Number: 18/883,994 Page 29 Art Unit: 2658 Application/Control Number: 18/883,994 Page 30 Art Unit: 2658 Application/Control Number: 18/883,994 Page 31 Art Unit: 2658 Application/Control Number: 18/883,994 Page 32 Art Unit: 2658 Application/Control Number: 18/883,994 Page 33 Art Unit: 2658 Application/Control Number: 18/883,994 Page 34 Art Unit: 2658 Application/Control Number: 18/883,994 Page 35 Art Unit: 2658 Application/Control Number: 18/883,994 Page 36 Art Unit: 2658 Application/Control Number: 18/883,994 Page 37 Art Unit: 2658 Application/Control Number: 18/883,994 Page 38 Art Unit: 2658 Application/Control Number: 18/883,994 Page 39 Art Unit: 2658
