DETAILED ACTION
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 .
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.
Claim 15 is 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 15 recites the limitation "the selected suggestion algorithm" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim Objections
Claims 7 and 12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 7 & 12: the limitation “selection algorithms” should be changed to --suggestion algorithms--.
Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gruber et al. (“Gruber”, US 2012/0016678) in view of Bajaj et al. (“Bajaj”, US 2020/0351241).
As per claim 1, Gruber teaches a computer-implemented method for providing domain services for a conversational interface platform, the computer-implemented method comprising:
receiving, from the conversational interface platform at a domain service system, information about a prompt that relates to a domain service (Gruber, para.88, 123, 243, 251, 253, 260, 262, 368-374, 541, 670-673, receiving input from conversational interface where input constrained by domain models);
analyzing, by the domain service system, the information about the prompt that relates to the domain service (Gruber, para.172-175, 306, 312, 384-393, 421, 459-460, 472, 550-556, 678, interpreting prompt and inferring intent to produce representation of user intent);
generating, by the domain service system, a response to the prompt that relates to the domain service (Gruber, para.307, 469, 519-523, 551, 558, 564-565, 679-680, services invoked using inputted parameters); and
transmitting, from the domain service system to the conversational interface platform, the response to the prompt that relates to the domain service (Gruber para.383, 412-413, 469, 480, 523, 558, 565, 585-592, 604-605, 680-681, domain specific results received and presented to user via assistant).
However, Gruber does not explicitly teach the system and services to be a domain name service. Bajaj teaches a domain name generator method that includes a conversational interface to provide domain name services (Bajaj, Fig.4; para.35, conversational interface; para.107-108, 110, domain name registration). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include Bajaj‘s teaching with Gruber’s method in order to provide DNS related services.
As per claim 2, the method of Gruber and Bajaj teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the domain name service system is a domain name system (DNS) service provider plugin application programming interface (API) (Gruber, para.87, 377, 501-503, 556, 564, assistant calls external services via API; Bajaj, para.107-108, 110, DNS service).
As per claim 3, the method of Gruber and Bajaj teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the domain name service system comprises a multi-modal request handler to parse, aggregate, and consolidate the information about the prompt that relates to the domain name service and generate a parsed, aggregated, and consolidated output (Gruber, para.9, 364, 523, 607, 615, 677, multimodal input/output unified into unified input format).
As per claim 4, the method of Gruber and Bajaj teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the domain name service system comprises a context facilitator to evaluate and supplement a context of the prompt (Gruber, para.130-135, 386-387, 412, input supplemented by context information).
As per claim 5, the method of Gruber and Bajaj teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 4, wherein the context facilitator uses a context builder to build additional context to supplement the context responsive to a determination that the context is insufficient (Gruber, para.384-387; 412, 473, 475, 569, 826-838, 938-956, missing parameters/interpretation uncertain so prompt for more information; results are insufficient).
As per claim 6, the method of Gruber and Bajaj teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 5, wherein the context builder uses a large language model or a dataset to build the additional context to supplement the context (Gruber, para.251, 253, 270-284, data from databases/models).
As per claim 7, the method of Gruber and Bajaj teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the domain name service system comprises a suggestion algorithm picker to select a suggestion algorithm from a plurality of selection algorithms, wherein the selection is based on a context of the prompt (Gruber, para.250-259, 292-295, 299-302, 331-336, 733, 938-963, various models 1056/1058/1060/1072/1086/1087/1088 provide suggestions based on context of input).
As per claim 8, the method of Gruber and Bajaj teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 7, wherein the domain name service system uses the selected suggestion algorithm to call a domain name search application programming interface (API) to perform an operation associated with the prompt (Gruber, para.501-503, 556, 564, assistant calls external services via API; Bajaj, para.107-108, 110, domain name resources).
As per claim 9, the method of Gruber and Bajaj teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 8, wherein the operation comprises one or more of searching for a domain name, suggesting a domain name, checking domain name availability, generating a logo, or suggesting a large language model (Gruber, para.496, 501-503, 556, 564, tasks; Bajaj, Fig.4, para.107-108, 110, domain name resources).
As per claim 10, the method of Gruber and Bajaj teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the domain name service system comprises a multi-modal response handler to generate a multi-modal response to the conversational interface platform, where the conversational interface platform generates a conversational response based on the response from the multi-modal response handler (Gruber, para.9, 364, 523, 607, 615, 677, multimodal input/output unified into unified input format).
Claim 11 is similar in scope to claim 1, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
As per claim 12, the system of Gruber and Bajaj teaches the system of claim 11, wherein the domain name service system comprises:
a multi-modal request handler to parse, aggregate, and consolidate the information about the prompt that relates to the domain name service and generate a parsed, aggregated, and consolidated output (Gruber, para.9, 364, 523, 607, 615, 677, multimodal input/output unified into unified input format);
a context facilitator to evaluate and supplement a context of the prompt (Gruber, para.130-135, 386-387, 412, input supplemented by context information);
a suggestion algorithm picker to select a suggestion algorithm from a plurality of selection algorithms, wherein the selection is based on the context of the prompt (Gruber, para.250-259, 292-295, 299-302, 331-336, 733, 938-963, various models 1056/1058/1060/1072/1086/1087/1088 provide suggestions based on context of input); and
a multi-modal response handler to generate a multi-modal response to the conversational interface platform, where the conversational interface platform generates a conversational response based on the response from the multi-modal response handler (Gruber, para.9, 364, 523, 607, 615, 677, multimodal input/output unified into unified input format).
Claim 13 is similar in scope to claim 5, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 14 is similar in scope to claim 6, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 15 is similar in scope to claim 9, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
As per claim 16, Gruber teaches a computer-implemented method for providing domain name services for a conversational interface platform, the computer-implemented method comprising:
receiving, at the conversational interface platform from a user, a prompt relating to a domain service (Gruber, para.88, 123, 243, 251, 253, 260, 262, 368-374, 541, 670-673, receiving input from conversational interface where input constrained by domain models);
providing, by the conversational interface platform to a domain service system, information about the prompt that relates to the domain service (Gruber, para.172-175, 306, 312, 384-393, 421, 459-460, 472, 550-556, 678, interpreting prompt and inferring intent to produce representation of user intent);
receiving, by the conversational interface platform from the domain service system, a response to the prompt that relates to the domain service (Gruber, para.307, 469, 519-523, 551, 558, 564-565, 679-680, services invoked using inputted parameters); and
presenting, by the conversational interface platform, the response to the prompt that relates to the domain service as a conversational response (Gruber para.383, 412-413, 469, 480, 523, 558, 565, 585-592, 604-605, 680-681, domain specific results received and presented to user via assistant).
However, Gruber does not explicitly teach the system and services to be a domain name service. Bajaj teaches a domain name generator method that includes a conversational interface to provide domain name services (Bajaj, Fig.4; para.35, conversational interface; para.107-108, 110, domain name registration). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include Bajaj‘s teaching with Gruber’s method in order to provide DNS related services.
As per claim 17, the method of Gruber and Bajaj teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 16, wherein the prompt is selected from a group consisting of a request to register a domain name, a request for recommendations for a domain name, and a request for information about a domain name (Gruber, para.244, 433, request for business info; Bajaj, para.81, 107-108, 110, domain name services).
As per claim 18, the method of Gruber and Bajaj teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 16, wherein the information about the prompt that relates to the domain name service includes the prompt itself (Gruber, para.88, 123, 243, 251, 253, 260, 262, 368-374, 541, 670-673, receiving input from conversational interface where input constrained by domain models).
As per claim 19, the method of Gruber and Bajaj teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 16, wherein the information about the prompt that relates to the domain name service includes information extracted from or generated based on the prompt but not the prompt itself (Gruber, para.801-838, context information included based on prompt).
As per claim 20, the method of Gruber and Bajaj teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 16, wherein the conversational interface platform generates the conversational response based at least in part on the prompt related to the domain name service and the response to the prompt related to the domain name service (Gruber, para.307, 469, 519-523, 551, 558, 564-565, 679-680, response based on inputted parameters).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yadgar et al. (US 2017/0116989) teaches a method of using a virtual assistant with domain-specific plug-ins.
Le et al. (US 2024/0346251) teaches a method of integrating applications into a messaging service.
Bent, III et al. (US 2024/0126997) teaches a method of content creation in a conversational interface using custom language models.
Bendale et al. (US 2023/0281466) teaches a method of multimodal inputs generating contextual responses.
Reddy et al. (US 2024/0303424) teaches a method of generating prompts and submitting to LLM.
Heller et al. (US 2024/0242037) teaches a method of generating prompts using templates.
Kim et al. (US 2025/0007870) teaches a method of prompt generation using LLM and templates.
Inquiries
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAJEDA MUHEBBULLAH whose telephone number is (571)272-4065. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Tue/Thur-Fri 10am-8pm.
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, William L Bashore can be reached at 571-272-4088. 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.
/S.M./
Sajeda MuhebbullahExaminer, Art Unit 2174
/WILLIAM L BASHORE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2174
