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 .
This action is in response to the communication filed on August 24, 2026.
Claims 1-12 are pending in this action. Claims 1 and 5 have been amended.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baker et al. (US 2025/0111850) in view of McGann et al. (US 2021/0160373).
As per claim 1, Baker discloses, a method comprising:
executing, by a virtual assistant server (Paragraph 0037, "DAMS's application execution server"), a first subset of nodes of a dialog flow during a conversation with a user device (Paragraphs 0040 and 0081-0083, "dialog flow" and "nodes"), wherein one or more identifiers of one or more sub-intents to be associated with the first subset of nodes are obtained from an enterprise device, wherein the one or more sub-intents are different from an intent of the dialog flow (Paragraphs 0039-0041; "intent").
Baker does not explicitly disclose, but McGann discloses, wherein based on the obtained one or more identifiers, one or more language models of the one or more sub-intents are associated with the first subset of nodes (Paragraphs 0106-0122, here “label” as claimed “identifier”; Paragraphs 0191-0192).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Baker by including identifiers as taught by McGann for the advantage of detect from said messages of said dialog a trigger event matching a rule; in response to detection of said trigger event: provide said agent station with a copy of messages of said dialog; and provide control of said automated dialog engine to said agent station (Paragraph 0051).
receiving, by the virtual assistant server, from the user device, an utterance during the execution of the first subset of nodes (Paragraphs 0039-0041, Fig. 2); and
interpreting the utterance, by the virtual assistant server, using one or more language models associated with the one or more sub-intents associated with the first subset of nodes (Paragraph 0079, "language model"; "associating scores with end user utterances indicating the extent to which the utterances match expected word strings for various stages of the dialogs used for setting intent parameters").
As per claim 2, Baker discloses, further comprising: executing, by the virtual assistant server, a second dialog flow of one of the one or more sub-intents associated with the first subset of nodes based on the interpretation of the utterance (Paragraphs 0081-0083).
As per claim 3, Baker discloses, wherein the dialog flow comprises the first subset of nodes and an additional one or more nodes (Paragraphs 0081-0083). As per claim 4, Baker discloses, wherein the one or more identifiers are names of the one or more sub-intents (Paragraphs 0045-0048).
As per claim 5, Baker discloses, virtual assistant server comprising: one or more processors (Paragraph 0085, "GPU"); and
a memory coupled to the one or more processors which are configured to execute programmed instructions stored in the memory (Paragraph 0089) to:
execute a first subset of nodes of a dialog flow during a conversation with a user device, wherein one or more identifiers of one or more sub-intents to be associated with the first subset of nodes are obtained from an enterprise device (Paragraphs 0040 and 0081-0083, "dialog flow" and "nodes"), wherein the one or more sub-intents are different from an intent of the dialog flow (Paragraphs 0039-0041; "intent");
receive from the user device, an utterance during the execution of the first subset of nodes (Paragraphs 0039-0041, Fig. 2); and
interpret the utterance using one or more language models associated with the one or more sub-intents associated with the first subset of nodes (Paragraph 0079, "language model"; "associating scores with end user utterances indicating the extent to which the utterances match expected word strings for various stages of the dialogs used for setting intent parameters").
As per claims 6-12, they are analyzed and thus rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of claims 1-5. Because the corresponding claims have similar limitations.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-12 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Abul K. Azad whose telephone number is (571) 272-7599. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Bhavesh Mehta, can be reached at (571) 272-7453.
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Commissioner for Patents
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
Or faxed to: (571) 273-8300.
Hand-delivered responses should be brought to 401 Dulany Street, Alexandria, VA-22314 (Customer Service Window).
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
October 2, 2026
/ABUL K AZAD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2656
