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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
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 stand rejected:
Claims 1 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite “collecting single-intent dataset” associated with “single-intent utterances”, and after “preprocessing” and “selecting” a “plurality” of them to “merge” those which are “select[ed]” into “one multi-intent utterance”.
These limitations, as drafted, correspond to processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover their performance in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting using the “at least one processor” (claim 11) and simply reciting “computer-implemented” in the preamble of claim 1, nothing in the claim limitations preclude their limitations from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “computer-implemented” (claim 1) and the “processor” (claim 11), a user hearing two sentences such as “I want to go to Los Angles”, and “I want to hike to mount Baldy”, could simply merge them into: “I want to go to Los Angeles” “and” “to hike to mount Baldy”; i.e., the first sentence is associated with a single intent of travel, and the second sentence is associated with a single intent of hiking are merged into a “multi-intent” sentence that if spoken would be a multi-intent uttered sentence. If a claim limitation or limitations, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite one additional element --- using a processor to perform all the limitations of “collecting”, “preprocessing” “selecting” and “merging”. The “processor” in all these limitations, the “processor” is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are therefore directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do 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 element of using a “processor” to perform all the limitations of “collecting”, “preprocessing” “selecting” and “merging” amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not therefore patent eligible.
Regarding claims 2 (12), the phrases as “I want to go to Los Angeles”, and “I want to hike to mount Baldy” do not have any particular correlation with each other and their merging is independent of any correlation between them and thus it qualifies as merging of two randomly selected single intent phrases.
Regarding claims 3 (13), computation of “cosine similarity” is a mathematical operation and thus falls under the category of “mathematical concepts” abstract ideas.
Regarding claims 4 (14), use of a “frequency metric” based on calculation of “an evaluation measure” is a mathematical operation that falls under the category of “mathematical concepts” abstract ideas.
Regarding claims 5 (15), “a generative artificial intelligence model” is a well known additional element; the claim depends on doing the claim operation “by” the said “model”, without providing any details on how it is done and furthermore any reverse impacts by the claim limitation’s operations back on the said “model”.
Regarding claims 6(16), merging of two sentences (associated with different intents), using “or” between them requires basic knowledge of a language.
Regarding claims 7 (17), removal of a redundant conjunction between two sentences associated with two separate intents requires basic knowledge of grammar in that language; i.e., removal of the conjunction “and” between “I want to go to Los Angeles”, and “I want to hike to mount Baldy” will require basic knowledge of grammar in a language.
Regarding claims 8 (18), using “gerund” (“ing”) to convert a verb into a noun and thus derive an intent requires basic knowledge of vocabulary and grammar in a language.
Regarding claims 9 (19), 10 (20), eliminating redundant or repetitive expressions which could appear when combining sentences (associated with different intents) and when necessary replacing them with pronouns is something most people learn in grammar school by e.g., when they were learning how to summarize an essay.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 11-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by FERRIS et al. (US 2024/0283868).
Regarding claim 1, FERRIS et al. do teach a computable-implementable method for generating multi-intent datasets (¶ 0003 lines 1-2 and 12 respectively: “The present invention includes a computer-implemented method for” “mining intents from the conversation data”),
the method comprising:
collecting single-intent datasets (¶ 0089 second column lines 6-7: “selecting an intent” “and the utterances that belong to that intent” (getting single intent datasets));
preprocessing the collected single-intent datasets while preserving meanings and structures of utterances in the collected single-intent datasets (¶ 0089 second column lines 2+: “fine-tuning and pruning intents” (preprocessing the single intent datasets) “and associated utterances before exporting them into a bot training”; this operation of “pruning” (the preprocessing) is done “based on a maximum length threshold, as longer sentences tend not to be coherent” (preserves meanings and structure of the utterances; ¶ 0097 lines 5-6) and it “likely contains the intent expressed by the customer” (¶ 0097 lines 9-10));
selecting a plurality of single-intent utterances to be merged from the preprocessed single-intent datasets; and merging the plurality of selected single-intent utterances into one multi-intent utterance (¶ 0089 second column lines 6+: “selecting” (selecting) “an intent” (a plurality of single intent) “and the utterances” (utterances) “that belong to that intent” “merging two or more intents into a single intent” (merging the plurality of selected single-intent utterances) “which may result in the merger” (to generate a multi-intent) “of their chosen utterances” (utterance)).
Regarding claim 2, FERRIS et al. do teach the method of claim 1, wherein selecting the plurality of single-intent utterances to be merged includes: randomly selecting utterances with different intents ((¶ 0089 second column lines 6+: “selecting” (selecting) “an intent” (a plurality of single intent) “and the utterances” (utterances) “that belong to that intent” “merging two or more intents into a single intent” (merging the plurality of selected single-intent utterances which have no specific relation to each other and thus are randomly selected intent utterances) “which may result in the merger” (to generate a multi-intent) “of their chosen utterances” (utterance).
Regarding claim 3, FERRIS et al. do teach the method of claim 1, wherein selecting the plurality of single-intent utterances to be merged includes:
selecting a plurality of single-intent utterances similar in sentence structure or format based on cosine similarity (¶ 0109 S2+: “cosine similarity can be used to provide a measure of semantic closeness between word-embeddings in the higher dimensional space. With this obtained, the salient intent can then be group” (intents get merged with these) “in accordance to those pairs having a cosine similarity of embeddings greater than a predetermined similarity threshold” (based on cosine similarity)).
Regarding claim 4, FERRIS et al. do teach the method of claim 1, further comprising: reviewing a multi-intent dataset generated by a generative artificial intelligence model by using a frequency metric, the frequency metric being an evaluation measure configured to determine whether the merging is properly done (¶ 0109 S2+: “cosine similarity can be used to provide a measure of semantic closeness between word-embeddings in the higher dimensional space. With this obtained, the salient intent can then be group” (intents get merged with these) “in accordance to those pairs having a cosine similarity of embeddings greater than a predetermined similarity threshold” (based on a frequency metric) “which may be set between a range of 0 and 1” “As in the case of choosing the maximum intents” (to insure merging is “maximum” (properly done)) “this” “value might be pre-set” “for example, at 0.8”; note that the methods here are based on “using artificial intelligence” (using an artificial intelligence model ¶ 0078)).
Regarding claim 5, FERRIS et al. do teach the method of claim 2, further comprising: evaluating the multi-intent dataset by using an artificial intelligence model and generated datasets (¶ 0078 lines 13+: “the intent inference module” “may automatically infer” “customer’s intent” (e.g., evaluating a multi-intent customer utterance) “using artificial intelligence” (using an artificial intelligence model)).
Regarding claim 11, FERRIS et al. do teach an apparatus for generating multi-intent datasets (¶ 0003 lines 1-2 and 12 respectively: “The present invention includes a computer-implemented method for” “mining intents from the conversation data”),
the apparatus comprising:
a memory configured to store one or more instructions; and at least one processor configured to execute the one or more instructions stored in the memory (¶ 0025 S1: “The processor 105 may be any logic circuitry that responds to and processes instructions fetched from the main memory 110”),
wherein the at least one processor, by executing the one or more instructions, is configured to:
collect single-intent datasets (¶ 0089 second column lines 6-7: “selecting an intent” “and the utterances that belong to that intent” (getting single intent datasets));
preprocess the collected single-intent datasets while preserving meanings and structures of utterances in the collected single-intent datasets (¶ 0089 second column lines 2+: “fine-tuning and pruning intents” (preprocessing the single intent datasets) “and associated utterances before exporting them into a bot training”; this operation of “pruning” (the preprocessing) is done “based on a maximum length threshold, as longer sentences tend not to be coherent” (preserves meanings and structure of the utterances; ¶ 0097 lines 5-6) and it “likely contains the intent expressed by the customer” (¶ 0097 lines 9-10));
select a plurality of single-intent utterances to be merged from the preprocessed single-intent datasets; and merge the plurality of selected single-intent utterances into one multi-intent utterance (¶ 0089 second column lines 6+: “selecting” (selecting) “an intent” (a plurality of single intent) “and the utterances” (utterances) “that belong to that intent” “merging two or more intents into a single intent” (merging the plurality of selected single-intent utterances) “which may result in the merger” (to generate a multi-intent) “of their chosen utterances” (utterance)).
Regarding claim 12, FERRIS et al. do teach the apparatus of claim 11, wherein when selecting the plurality of single-intent utterances to be merged, the at least one processor is configured to randomly select utterances with different intents ((¶ 0089 second column lines 6+: “selecting” (selecting) “an intent” (a plurality of single intent) “and the utterances” (utterances) “that belong to that intent” “merging two or more intents into a single intent” (merging the plurality of selected single-intent utterances which have no specific relation to each other and thus are randomly selected intent utterances) “which may result in the merger” (to generate a multi-intent) “of their chosen utterances” (utterance).
Regarding claim 13, FERRIS et al. do teach the apparatus of claim 11, wherein when selecting the plurality of single-intent utterances to be merged, the at least one processor is configured to select a plurality of single-intent utterances similar in sentence structure or format based on cosine similarity (¶ 0109 S2+: “cosine similarity can be used to provide a measure of semantic closeness between word-embeddings in the higher dimensional space. With this obtained, the salient intent can then be group” (intents get merged with these) “in accordance to those pairs having a cosine similarity of embeddings greater than a predetermined similarity threshold” (based on cosine similarity)).
Regarding claim 14, FERRIS et al. do teach the apparatus of claim 11, wherein the at least one processor is configured to: review a multi-intent dataset generated by a generative artificial intelligence model by using a frequency metric, where the frequency metric being an evaluation measure configured to determine whether the merging is properly done (¶ 0109 S2+: “cosine similarity can be used to provide a measure of semantic closeness between word-embeddings in the higher dimensional space. With this obtained, the salient intent can then be group” (intents get merged with these) “in accordance to those pairs having a cosine similarity of embeddings greater than a predetermined similarity threshold” (based on a frequency metric) “which may be set between a range of 0 and 1” “As in the case of choosing the maximum intents” (to insure merging is “maximum” (properly done)) “this” “value might be pre-set” “for example, at 0.8”; note that the methods here are based on “using artificial intelligence” (using an artificial intelligence model ¶ 0078)).
Regarding claim 15, FERRIS et al. do teach the apparatus of claim 12, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to evaluate the multi-intent dataset by using an artificial intelligence model and generated datasets (¶ 0078 lines 13+: “the intent inference module” “may automatically infer” “customer’s intent” (e.g., evaluating a multi-intent customer utterance) “using artificial intelligence” (using an artificial intelligence model)).
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) 6, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FERRIS et al., and further in view of RAO et al. (US 2022/0107802).
Regarding claim 6, FERRIS et al. do not specifically disclose the method of claim 1, wherein merging the plurality of selected single-intent utterances into the one multi-intent utterance includes:
merging the plurality of selected single-intent utterances into the one multi-intent utterance by using at least one of ';', 'or', 'before', 'after', 'additionally', or 'finally'.
RAO et al. do teach:
merging the plurality of selected single-intent utterances into the one multi-intent utterance by using at least one of ';', 'or', 'before', 'after', 'additionally', or 'finally' (¶ 0002 last S: “Logic connectors such as AND, OR” (using ‘or’) “and NOT may be used to combine” (to merge) “phrases” (e.g. single intent datasets) “in a query”; i.e., because according to ¶ 0044 last S: “A given query” “may have more than one detected intent” “or sub-intent”).
It would have therefore been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the “Logic connectors” to “combine” “phrases” of RAO et al. into the “merging” “intent” operation of FERRIS et al. would enable the combined systems and their associated methods to perform in combination as they do separately and to further enable FERRIS et al. to apply its techniques to be used in “query” for “search” purposes and further help “increase search result relevance” as disclosed in RAO et al. ¶ 0002 last S.
Regarding claim 16, FERRIS et al. do not specifically disclose the apparatus of claim 11, wherein when merging the plurality of selected single-intent utterances into the one multi-intent utterance, the at least one processor is further configured to
merge the plurality of selected single-intent utterances into the one multi-intent utterance by using at least one of ';', 'or', 'before', 'after', 'additionally', or 'finally'.
RAO et al. do teach:
merge the plurality of selected single-intent utterances into the one multi-intent utterance by using at least one of ';', 'or', 'before', 'after', 'additionally', or 'finally' (¶ 0002 last S: “Logic connectors such as AND, OR” (using ‘or’) “and NOT may be used to combine” (to merge) “phrases” (e.g. single intent datasets) “in a query”; i.e., because according to ¶ 0044 last S: “A given query” “may have more than one detected intent” “or sub-intent”).
It would have therefore been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the “Logic connectors” to “combine” “phrases” of RAO et al. into the “merging” “intent” operation of FERRIS et al. would enable the combined systems and their associated methods to perform in combination as they do separately and to further enable FERRIS et al. to apply its techniques to be used in “query” for “search” purposes and further help “increase search result relevance” as disclosed in RAO et al. ¶ 0002 last S.
Claim(s) 7, 9, 17, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FERRIS et al., and further in view of Bhat (US Patent 12,664,371).
Regarding claim 7, FERRIS et al. do not specifically disclose the method of claim 1, wherein merging of the plurality of selected single-intent utterances into the one multi-intent utterance includes:
merging the plurality of selected single-intent utterances into the one multi-intent utterance by removing a conjunction.
Bhat does teach:
merging the plurality of selected single-intent utterances into the one multi-intent utterance by removing a conjunction (Col. 2 lines 46+: “removing information that is insignificant in capturing such intent” (in capturing an intent including a complex multi-intent phenomenon) “to express intent such as removal of” (by removing) “conjunctions” (a conjunction) “duplicative words”).
It would have therefore been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the process of “intent” refinement of Bhat into the “merging” “intent” operation of FERRIS et al. would enable the combined systems and their associated methods to perform in combination as they do separately and to further enable FERRIS et al. to “to express intent” by “removing information that is insignificant in capturing intent” as disclosed in Bhat Col. 2 lines 46-52 which results in shorter and more concise a “conversation” while not comprising passage of “an intended purpose”.
Regarding claim 9, FERRIS et al. do not specifically disclose the method of claim 1, wherein merging the plurality of selected single-intent utterances into the one multi-intent utterance includes:
merging the plurality of selected single-intent utterances into the one multi-intent utterance by arbitrarily eliminating redundant expressions in multiple sentences.
Bhat does teach:
merging the plurality of selected single-intent utterances into the one multi-intent utterance by arbitrarily eliminating redundant expressions in multiple sentences (Col. 2 lines 46+: “removing” (eliminating) “information that is insignificant” (redundant expressions) “e.g., unnecessary character string used” “to express intent” (to clarify e.g. a multi-intent utterance)).
For obviousness to combine FERRIS et al. and Bhat see claim 7.
Regarding claim 17, FERRIS et al. do not specifically disclose the apparatus of claim 11, wherein when merging of the plurality of selected single-intent utterances into the one multi-intent utterance,
The at least one processor is configured to merge the plurality of selected single-intent utterances into the one multi-intent utterance by removing a conjunction.
Bhat does teach:
The at least one processor is configured to merge the plurality of selected single-intent utterances into the one multi-intent utterance by removing a conjunction (Col. 2 lines 46+: “removing information that is insignificant in capturing such intent” (in capturing an intent including a complex multi-intent phenomenon) “to express intent such as removal of” (by removing) “conjunctions” (a conjunction) “duplicative words”).
It would have therefore been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the process of “intent” refinement of Bhat into the “merging” “intent” operation of FERRIS et al. would enable the combined systems and their associated methods to perform in combination as they do separately and to further enable FERRIS et al. to “to express intent” by “removing information that is insignificant in capturing intent” as disclosed in Bhat Col. 2 lines 46-52 which results in shorter and more concise a “conversation” while not comprising passage of “an intended purpose”.
Regarding claim 19, FERRIS et al. do not specifically disclose the apparatus of claim 11, wherein when merging the plurality of selected single-intent utterances into the one multi-intent utterance,
The at least one processor is configured to merge the plurality of selected single-intent utterances into the one multi-intent utterance by arbitrarily eliminating redundant expressions in multiple sentences.
Bhat does teach:
The at least one processor is configured to merge the plurality of selected single-intent utterances into the one multi-intent utterance by arbitrarily eliminating redundant expressions in multiple sentences (Col. 2 lines 46+: “removing” (eliminating) “information that is insignificant” (redundant expressions) “e.g., unnecessary character string used” “to express intent” (to clarify e.g. a multi-intent utterance)).
For obviousness to combine FERRIS et al. and Bhat see claim 17.
Claim(s) 8, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FERRIS et al., and further in view of Kumar et al. (US 2021/0089627).
Regarding claim 8, FERRIS et al. do not specifically disclose the method of claim 1, wherein merging the plurality of selected single-intent utterances into the one multi-intent utterance includes:
merging the plurality of selected single-intent utterances into the one multi-intent utterance by transforming a particular utterance into a gerund phrase.
Kumar et al. do teach:
merging the plurality of selected single-intent utterances into the one multi-intent utterance by transforming a particular utterance into a gerund phrase (¶ 0032 lines 6+: “Intents” (e.g., a merged multi-intent word) “and entities are generated from the gerunds” (is obtained by transforming them using gerunds (i.e. adding “ing” after a verb))).
It would have therefore been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the functions of “intents” module (Fig. 3) of Kumar et al. into the “merging” “intent” function of FERRIS et al. would enable the combined systems and their associated methods to perform in combination as they do separately and to further help FERRIS et al. in a new method of “generat[ing]” “intents” by using “gerunds” (i.e., adding “ing” after a verb) as disclosed in Kumar et al. ¶ 0032.
Regarding claim 18, FERRIS et al. do not specifically disclose the apparatus of claim 11, wherein when merging the plurality of selected single-intent utterances into the one multi-intent utterance,
The at least one processor is configured to merge the plurality of selected single-intent utterances into the one multi-intent utterance by transforming a particular utterance into a gerund phrase.
Kumar et al. do teach:
The at least one processor is configured to merge the plurality of selected single-intent utterances into the one multi-intent utterance by transforming a particular utterance into a gerund phrase (¶ 0032 lines 6+: “Intents” (e.g., a merged multi-intent word) “and entities are generated from the gerunds” (is obtained by transforming them using gerunds (i.e. adding “ing” after a verb))).
It would have therefore been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the functions of “intents” module (Fig. 3) of Kumar et al. into the “merging” “intent” function of FERRIS et al. would enable the combined systems and their associated methods to perform in combination as they do separately and to further help FERRIS et al. in a new method of “generat[ing]” “intents” by using “gerunds” (i.e., adding “ing” after a verb) as disclosed in Kumar et al. ¶ 0032.
Claim(s) 10, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FERRIS et al., and further in view of KRALJIC et al. (WO 2020/180286).
Regarding claim 10, FERRIS et al. do not specifically disclose the method of claim 1, wherein merging the plurality of selected single-intent utterances into the one multi-intent utterance includes:
Merging the plurality of selected single-intent utterances into the one multi-intent utterance by eliminating redundant expressions in multiple sentences and substituting the redundant expressions with pronouns.
KRALJIC et al. do teach:
Merging the plurality of selected single-intent utterances into the one multi-intent utterance by eliminating redundant expressions in multiple sentences and substituting the redundant expressions with pronouns (¶ 0078 lines 2 and last 3 lines: “determined at least one intent” (e.g. determining a multi-intent phenomenon) “includes” “replacing” (substituting) “a noun” (a redundant expression) “in the text with a pronoun” (with pronouns); e.g., ¶ 0022 lines 8+: “For example, the abridged response of “OK, turning them off” can be generated from the initial response of “OK, turning the kitchen lights off” (i.e., “kitchen lights” (redundant expressions) are replaced by “them” (a pronoun)).
It would have therefore been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the “intent” management of KRALJIC et al. into the “merging” “intent” operation of FERRIS et al. would enable the combined systems and their associated methods to perform in combination as they do separately and to further enable FERRIS et al. to help “truncat[e]” an “initial response” as disclosed in ¶ 0022 last 4 lines which in turn can also help with saving “bytes” while not comprising “intent” as disclosed KRALJIC et al. ¶ 0078.
Regarding claim 10, FERRIS et al. do not specifically disclose the method of claim 1, wherein merging the plurality of selected single-intent utterances into the one multi-intent utterance includes:
Merging the plurality of selected single-intent utterances into the one multi-intent utterance by eliminating redundant expressions in multiple sentences and substituting the redundant expressions with pronouns.
KRALJIC et al. do teach:
Merging the plurality of selected single-intent utterances into the one multi-intent utterance by eliminating redundant expressions in multiple sentences and substituting the redundant expressions with pronouns (¶ 0078 lines 2 and last 3 lines: “determined at least one intent” (e.g. determining a multi-intent phenomenon) “includes” “replacing” (substituting) “a noun” (a redundant expression) “in the text with a pronoun” (with pronouns); e.g., ¶ 0022 lines 8+: “For example, the abridged response of “OK, turning them off” can be generated from the initial response of “OK, turning the kitchen lights off” (i.e., “kitchen lights” (redundant expressions) are replaced by “them” (a pronoun)).
It would have therefore been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the “intent” management of KRALJIC et al. into the “merging” “intent” operation of FERRIS et al. would enable the combined systems and their associated methods to perform in combination as they do separately and to further enable FERRIS et al. to help “truncat[e]” an “initial response” as disclosed in ¶ 0022 last 4 lines which in turn can also help with saving “bytes” while not comprising “intent” as disclosed KRALJIC et al. ¶ 0078.
Regarding claim 20, FERRIS et al. do not specifically disclose the apparatus of claim 11, wherein when merging the plurality of selected single-intent utterances into one multi-intent utterance,
The at least one processor is configured to merge the plurality of selected single-intent utterances into the one multi-intent utterance by eliminating redundant expressions in multiple sentences and substituting the redundant expressions with pronouns.
KRALJIC et al. do teach:
The at least one processor is configured to merge the plurality of selected single-intent utterances into the one multi-intent utterance by eliminating redundant expressions in multiple sentences and substituting the redundant expressions with pronouns (¶ 0078 lines 2 and last 3 lines: “determined at least one intent” (e.g. determining a multi-intent phenomenon) “includes” “replacing” (substituting) “a noun” (a redundant expression) “in the text with a pronoun” (with pronouns); e.g., ¶ 0022 lines 8+: “For example, the abridged response of “OK, turning them off” can be generated from the initial response of “OK, turning the kitchen lights off” (i.e., “kitchen lights” (redundant expressions) are replaced by “them” (a pronoun)).
It would have therefore been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the “intent” management of KRALJIC et al. into the “merging” “intent” operation of FERRIS et al. would enable the combined systems and their associated methods to perform in combination as they do separately and to further enable FERRIS et al. to help “truncat[e]” an “initial response” as disclosed in ¶ 0022 last 4 lines which in turn can also help with saving “bytes” while not comprising “intent” as disclosed KRALJIC et al. ¶ 0078.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. George et al. (US 2022/0101839) ¶ 0087 S4+: “selecting an intent and the utterances that belong to intent” (collecting single intent datasets); “merging two or more intents into a single intent” (selecting a plurality of single intent utterances to be merged) “which may result in the merger of the chosen utterances” (merging the plurality of the single intent datasets).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FARZAD KAZEMINEZHAD whose telephone number is (571)270-5860. The examiner can normally be reached 10:30 am to 11:30 pm.
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, Paras D. Shah can be reached at (571) 270-1650. 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.
/Farzad Kazeminezhad/
Art Unit 2653
September 5th 2026.
Prosecution Insights