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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to application 18/977,180, which was filed 12/11/24. Claims 1-20 are pending in the application and have been considered.
Foreign Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it over 150 words. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: Electronic Device for Generating a Biased Response to a User Utterance.
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, 2, 6-10, and 12-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites “receive an utterance of a user, analyze a bias of the utterance or a bias of the user, generate a response comprising biased information, based on an analysis result of the bias of the utterance or an analysis result of the bias of the user, and provide the response to the user”.
The limitation of receive an utterance of a user, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “receive an utterance of a user” in the context of this claim encompasses listening to a utterance of a user.
Similarly, the limitation of “analyze a bias of the utterance or a bias of the user”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “analyze a bias of the utterance or a bias of the user” in the context of this claim encompasses mentally analyzing a bias of the utterance or a bias of the user.
Similarly, the limitation of “generate a response comprising biased information, based on an analysis result of the bias of the utterance or an analysis result of the bias of the user”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “generate a response comprising biased information, based on an analysis result of the bias of the utterance or an analysis result of the bias of the user” in the context of this claim encompasses mentally generating a response comprising biased information, based on an analysis result of the bias of the utterance or an analysis result of the bias of the user.
Similarly, the limitation of “provide the response to the user”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “provide the response to the user” in the context of this claim encompasses writing down the response on a sheet of paper and providing it to the user.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers 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 claim recites an abstract idea. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites five additional elements – “electronic device”, “memory”, “computer programs”, “processors”, and “computer-executable instructions”. The computing elements in this step are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic electronic device, memory, computer programs, processors, and computer-executable instructions) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer elements. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using an electronic device to perform the receiving, analyzing, generating, and providing 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 claim is not patent eligible.
Specifically with respect to Step 2A, Prong Two, of the Alice/Mayo test, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 does not recite any limitations that are not mental steps.
Specifically with respect to Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, “the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself (there is no inventive concept in the claim)”. MPEP 2106.05 Il. There are no limitations in claim 1 outside of the judicial exception. As a whole, there does not appear to contain any inventive concept. As discussed above, claim 1 is a mental process that pertains to the mental process of analyzing a bias of an utterance or user and responding accordingly, which can be performed entirely by a human with physical aids.
Dependent claims 2, 6, and 7 depend from claim 1, do not remedy any of the deficiencies of claim 1, and therefore are rejected on the same grounds as claim 1 above.
Generally, claims 2, 6, and 7 merely recite additional steps for analyzing a bias of an utterance or user and responding accordingly, all of which could be performed mentally or by writing down text with a pen and paper, and do not amount to anything more than substantially the same abstract idea as explained with respect to claim 1.
Specifically:
Claim 2 recites “the analysis result of the bias of the utterance comprises at least one of a bias category of the utterance or a degree of bias of the utterance” which could be performed by mentally determining at least one of a bias category of the utterance or a degree of bias of the utterance.
Claim 6 recites “wherein the one or more computer programs further include computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the electronic device to: generate information about a bias of the response based on the response, and visually display the information about the bias of the response” which, but for the computer programs, computer-executable instructions, one or more processors, and electronic device, could be performed by mentally generating information about a bias of the response based on the response, and visually display the information about the bias of the response by writing down the information on a sheet of paper and holding it up for display. The computer programs, computer-executable instructions, one or more processors, and electronic device fail to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself for reasons explained above with regard to claim 1.
Claim 7 recites “wherein, in the response, a degree of bias of information to be included in the response or a bias of information to be included in the response changes according to the analysis result of the bias of the utterance or the analysis result of the bias of the user” which could be performed by mentally determining a degree of bias of information to be included in the response or a bias of information to be included in the response which changes according to the mental analysis result of the bias of the utterance or the mental analysis result of the bias of the user.
In sum, claims 2, 6, and 7 depend from claim 1 and further recite mental processes as explained above. None of the additional limitations recited in claims 2, 6, and 7 amount to anything more than the same or a similar abstract idea as recited in claim 8. Nor do any limitations in claims 2, 6, and 7 (a) integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea or (b) amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claims 2, 6, and 7 are not patent eligible.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites “receive an utterance of a user, generate a response comprising biased information, based on the utterance, generate information about a bias of the response, based on the response, and provide the response and the information about the bias together to the user”.
The limitation of receive an utterance of a user, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “receive an utterance of a user” in the context of this claim encompasses listening to a utterance of a user.
Similarly, the limitation of “generate a response comprising biased information, based on the utterance”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “generate a response comprising biased information, based on the utterance” in the context of this claim encompasses mentally generating a response comprising biased information, based on the utterance.
Similarly, the limitation of “generate information about a bias of the response”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “generate information about a bias of the response” in the context of this claim encompasses mentally generating information about a bias of the response.
Similarly, the limitation of “provide the response and the information about the bias together to the user”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “provide the response and the information about the bias together to the user” in the context of this claim encompasses writing down provide the response and the information about the bias on a sheet of paper and providing it together to the user.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers 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 claim recites an abstract idea. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites five additional elements – “electronic device”, “memory”, “computer programs”, “processors”, and “computer-executable instructions”. The computing elements in this step are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic electronic device, memory, computer programs, processors, and computer-executable instructions) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer elements. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using an electronic device to perform the receiving, analyzing, generating, and providing 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 claim is not patent eligible.
Specifically with respect to Step 2A, Prong Two, of the Alice/Mayo test, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 does not recite any limitations that are not mental steps.
Specifically with respect to Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, “the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself (there is no inventive concept in the claim)”. MPEP 2106.05 Il. There are no limitations in claim 1 outside of the judicial exception. As a whole, there does not appear to contain any inventive concept. As discussed above, claim 1 is a mental process that pertains to the mental process of analyzing a bias of an utterance or user and responding accordingly, which can be performed entirely by a human with physical aids.
Dependent claims 9, 10, 12, and 14-16 depend from claim 8, do not remedy any of the deficiencies of claim 1, and therefore are rejected on the same grounds as claim 8 above.
Generally, claims 9, 10, 12, and 14-16 merely recite additional steps for analyzing a bias of an utterance or user and responding accordingly, all of which could be performed mentally or by writing down text with a pen and paper, and do not amount to anything more than substantially the same abstract idea as explained with respect to claim 1.
Specifically:
Claim 9 recites “wherein the information about the bias comprises at least one of a bias category of the response or a degree of bias of the response” which could be performed by mentally determining at least one of a bias category of the response or a degree of bias of the response.
Claim 10 recites “wherein the response is generated based on a general language model and a biased language model” which could be performed by generating the response with a general mental language model and a biased mental language model.
Claim 12 recites “wherein, in the response, a degree of bias of information to be included in the response or a bias of information to be included in the response changes according to a setting of the user or an analysis result of a bias of the utterance” which could be performed by mentally determining a response in which a degree of bias of information to be included in the response or a bias of information to be included in the response changes according to a setting of the user or an analysis result of a bias of the utterance.
Claim 14 recites “wherein the response comprises a plurality of responses having different biases” which could be performed by mentally determining a plurality of responses having different biases.
Claim 15 recites “wherein the information about the bias is visually displayed” which could be performed by writing down the information about the bias on a sheet of paper and holding it up for visual display.
Claim 16 recites “wherein the one or more computer programs further include computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause electronic device to provide information about a bias of an entire conversation, including the utterance and the response” which, but for the computer programs, computer-executable instructions, one or more processors, and electronic device, could be performed by writing down information about a bias of an entire conversation, including the utterance and the response. The computer programs, computer-executable instructions, one or more processors, and electronic device fail to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself for reasons explained above with regard to claim 1.
In sum, claims 9, 10, 12, and 14-16 depend from claim 8 and further recite mental processes as explained above. None of the additional limitations recited in claims 9, 10, 12, and 14-16 amount to anything more than the same or a similar abstract idea as recited in claim 8. Nor do any limitations in claims 9, 10, 12, and 14-16 (a) integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea or (b) amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claims 9, 10, 12, and 14-16 are not patent eligible.
Independent claim 17 and dependent claims 18-19 are directed to an electronic device with similar components that perform similar operations to those discussed above with regard to independent claims 1 and 8, as well as dependent claims 9 and 12, and are rejected for similar reasons.
Eligible Claims
Claim 3 recites “the analysis result of the bias of the user corresponds to a setting of the user associated with a bias, and wherein the setting is obtained based on a bias setting user interface displayed by the electronic device” which cannot be practically performed as a mental process.
Claim 4 recites “wherein, to analyze the bias of the user, the one or more computer programs further include computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the electronic device to: determine a plurality of bias directions based on the utterance, provide a bias-setting user interface to the user including the plurality of bias directions, and receive a bias setting based on a bias direction selected from among the plurality of bias directions” which cannot be practically performed as a mental process.
Claim 5 recites “wherein, to provide the response to the user, the one or more computer programs further include computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the electronic device to: visually display the bias setting with the response” which cannot be practically performed as a mental process.
Claim 11 recites “wherein the biased language model is trained based on a corpus that is labeled with a bias category and a degree of bias” which cannot be practically performed as a mental process.
Claim 13 recites “wherein the setting of the user is obtained based on a bias setting user interface displayed by the electronic device” which cannot be practically performed as a mental process.
Claim 20 recites “wherein the biased language model is trained based on a corpus that is labeled with a bias category and a degree of bias” which cannot be practically performed as a mental process.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Anders et al. (US 20190325864).
Consider claim 1, Anders discloses an electronic device (computing device, [0026]) comprising:
memory storing one or more computer programs (instructions stored in memory, [0026]); and
one or more processors communicatively coupled to the memory, wherein the one or more computer programs include computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors (one or more processors execute the instructions stored in memory, [0026]), cause the electronic device to:
receive an utterance of a user (automated assistant receives an utterance from a user during human-to-computer dialog, [0038], [0039]),
analyze a bias of the utterance or a bias of the user (estimating the age, age range, vocabulary level, or gender of the user based on the received speech, [0043], [0104]; examiner note: Applicant’s specification at page 29, para [0116] describes age and gender as demographic bias),
generate a response comprising biased information, based on an analysis result of the bias of the utterance or an analysis result of the bias of the user (using different NLG templates for users of different vocabulary levels or age ranges, [0076], e.g. in response to the same “Is the tooth fairy real?” question from a child or adult, the language model generates an answer biased to the asker’s age, [0077]), and
provide the response to the user (generating speech output via TTS module, [0048]).
Consider claim 17, Anders discloses an electronic device (computing device, [0026]) comprising:
memory storing one or more computer programs (instructions stored in memory, [0026]); and
one or more processors communicatively coupled to the memory, wherein the one or more computer programs include computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors (one or more processors execute the instructions stored in memory, [0026]), cause the electronic device to:
receive an utterance of a user (automated assistant receives an utterance from a user during human-to-computer dialog, [0038], [0039]),
obtain first information about a bias of the utterance or second information about a bias of the user (estimating the age, age range, vocabulary level, or gender of the user based on the received speech, [0043], [0104]; examiner note: Applicant’s specification at page 29, para [0116] describes age and gender as demographic bias),
generate a prompt based on the first information or the second information (the system prompts a different NLG templates to generate text for users of different vocabulary levels or age ranges, [0076]);
generate a response comprising biased information from the prompt based on a general language model or a biased language model (e.g. in response to the same “Is the tooth fairy real?” question from a child or adult, using the selected NLG template, the language model generates an answer biased to the asker’s age, [0077]), and
provide the response to the user (generating speech output via TTS module, [0048]).
Consider claim 2, Anders discloses the analysis result of the bias of the utterance comprises at least one of a bias category of the utterance or a degree of bias of the utterance (estimating an age range for the user based on the utterance, i.e. a category of age, [0046]).
Consider claim 18, Anders discloses the first information comprises at least one of a bias category of the utterance or a degree of bias of the utterance (estimating an age range for the user based on the utterance, i.e. a category of age, [0046]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, 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 6-12, 14-16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anders et al. (US 20190325864) in view of Arora et al. (US 20210097239).
Consider claim 8, Anders discloses an electronic device (computing device, [0026]) comprising:
memory storing one or more computer programs (instructions stored in memory, [0026]); and
one or more processors communicatively coupled to the memory, wherein the one or more computer programs include computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors (one or more processors execute the instructions stored in memory, [0026]), cause the electronic device to:
receive an utterance of a user (automated assistant receives an utterance from a user during human-to-computer dialog, [0038], [0039]),
generate a response comprising biased information, based on the utterance (using different NLG templates for users of different vocabulary levels or age ranges, [0076], e.g. in response to the same “Is the tooth fairy real?” question from a child or adult, the language model generates an answer biased to the asker’s age, [0077]),
Anders does not specifically mention: generate information about a bias of the response, based on the response, and provide the response and the information about the bias together to the user.
Arora discloses generating information about a bias of a response, based on the response, and provide the response and the information about the bias together to a user (generating an alert response 213 based on the response to the message from Arpit, Fig. 2E, based on detecting bias in the text using ML model, the alert warning the user about the bias, [0044]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Anders by generating information about a bias of the response, based on the response, and providing the response and the information about the bias together to the user a user in order to address the need to solve or regulate text sensitivity-based bias in content identified by Arora ([0004]). Doing so would have led to predictable results of allowing users to be more conscious of biases in text, as suggested by Arora ([0099]). The references cited are analogous art in the same field of natural language processing.
Consider claim 6, Anders does not, but Arora discloses generating information about a bias of the response based on the response, and visually displaying the information about the bias of the response (generating and displaying an alert response 213 based on the response to the message from Arpit, Fig. 2E, based on detecting bias in the text using ML model, the alert warning the user about the bias, [0044]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Anders by generating information about a bias of the response based on the response, and visually displaying the information about the bias of the response for reasons similar to those for claim 8.
Consider claim 7, Anders does not, but Arora discloses, in the response, a degree of bias of information to be included in the response or a bias of information to be included in the response changes according to the analysis result of the bias of the utterance or the analysis result of the bias of the user (displaying the % match to a bias based on analyzing the text, [0033], [0034]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Anders such that in the response, a degree of bias of information to be included in the response or a bias of information to be included in the response changes according to the analysis result of the bias of the utterance or the analysis result of the bias of the user for reasons similar to those for claim 8.
Consider claim 9, Anders does not, but Arora discloses the information about the bias comprises at least one of a bias category of the response or a degree of bias of the response (the alert warning the user about the bias category, [0044], as well as displaying the % match to a bias based on analyzing the text, [0033], [0034]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Anders such that the information about the bias comprises at least one of a bias category of the response or a degree of bias of the response for reasons similar to those for claim 8.
Consider claim 10, Anders discloses the response is generated based on a general language model and a biased language model (e.g. in response to the same “Is the tooth fairy real?” question from a child or adult, using the selected NLG template, the language model generates an answer biased to the asker’s age, [0077], and is considered both general and biased based on the selected template).
Consider claim 11, Anders does not, but Arora discloses the biased language model is trained based on a corpus that is labeled with a bias category and a degree of bias (ML model is trained on datasets categorized with labels such as “hate speech”, which indicates both a type and degree, i.e. strong, of bias, [0037]-[0039]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Anders such that the biased language model is trained based on a corpus that is labeled with a bias category and a degree of bias for reasons similar to those for claim 8.
Consider claim 12, Anders does not, but Arora discloses, in the response, a degree of bias of information to be included in the response or a bias of information to be included in the response changes according to a setting of the user or an analysis result of a bias of the utterance (the alert warning the user about the bias category, [0044], as well as displaying the % match to a bias based on analyzing the text, [0033], [0034], changes based on analyzing the text).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Anders such that in the response, a degree of bias of information to be included in the response or a bias of information to be included in the response changes according to a setting of the user or an analysis result of a bias of the utterance for reasons similar to those for claim 8.
Consider claim 14, Anders does not, but Arora discloses the response comprises a plurality of responses having different biases (making users aware of different biases in the text, e.g. country, political, entity, gender, [0099], across multiple responses during a conversation, [0043]-[0044], Fig 2E).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Anders such that the response comprises a plurality of responses having different biases for reasons similar to those for claim 8.
Consider claim 15, Anders does not, but Arora discloses the information about the bias is visually displayed (displaying the bias information, [0044]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Anders such that the information about the bias is visually displayed for reasons similar to those for claim 8.
Consider claim 16, Anders discloses a bias of an entire conversation, including the utterance and the response (estimating the age, age range, vocabulary level, or gender of the user based on the received speech, and conducting subsequent interactions by outputting biased replies based on the estimation for the entire conversation, [0043], [0104]).
Anders does not specifically mention provide information about a bias.
Arora discloses providing information about a bias (displaying the bias information, [0044]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Anders by providing information about a bias for reasons similar to those for claim 8.
Consider claim 20, Anders does not, but Arora discloses the biased language model is trained based on a corpus that is labeled with a bias category and a degree of bias (ML model is trained on datasets categorized with labels such as “hate speech”, which indicates both a type and degree, i.e. strong, of bias, [0037]-[0039]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Anders such that the biased language model is trained based on a corpus that is labeled with a bias category and a degree of bias for reasons similar to those for claim 8.
Claims 3-5 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anders et al. (US 20190325864) in view of Byron et al. (US 20160132590).
Consider claim 3, Anders discloses the analysis result of the bias of the user (estimating the age, age range, vocabulary level, or gender of the user based on the received speech, [0043], [0104]; examiner note: Applicant’s specification at page 29, para [0116] describes age and gender as demographic bias).
Anders does not specifically mention the bias corresponds to a setting of the user associated with a bias, and wherein the setting is obtained based on a bias setting user interface displayed by the electronic device.
Byron discloses a bias corresponds to a setting of the user associated with a bias, and wherein the setting is obtained based on a bias setting user interface displayed by the electronic device (user may set the QA system persona to answer a question as a “Southern Aristocrat” or “Northern Abolitionist”, using UI shown in Fig. 5A, [0110]-[0112], in which case the answers reflect the biases in the source material used to answer the question, [0113]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Anders such that the bias corresponds to a setting of the user associated with a bias, and wherein the setting is obtained based on a bias setting user interface displayed by the electronic device in order to accommodate users who wish a question to be answered from a certain viewpoint, as suggested by Byron ([0016]), predictably satisfying user’s desire for non-factual answers, as suggested by Byron ([0016]). The references cited are analogous art in the same field of natural language processing.
Consider claim 4, Anders discloses to analyze the bias of the user, the one or more computer programs further include computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the electronic device to:
determine a plurality of bias based on the utterance (estimating the age, age range, vocabulary level, or gender of the user based on the received speech, [0043], [0104]; examiner note: Applicant’s specification at page 29, para [0116] describes age and gender as demographic bias).
Anders does not specifically mention a plurality of bias directions, provide a bias-setting user interface to the user including the plurality of bias directions, and receive a bias setting based on a bias direction selected from among the plurality of bias directions.
Byron discloses a plurality of bias directions, provide a bias-setting user interface to the user including the plurality of bias directions, and receive a bias setting based on a bias direction selected from among the plurality of bias directions (e.g. Southern Aristocrat, Northern Abolitionist, Fig 5A, [0110]-[0111]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Anders by determining a plurality of bias, as in Anders, in directions as in Byron based on the utterance; providing a bias-setting user interface to the user including the plurality of bias directions, and receiving a bias setting based on a bias direction selected from among the plurality of bias directions for reasons similar to those for claim 3.
Consider claim 5, Anders does not, but Byron discloses, to provide the response to the user, the one or more computer programs further include computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the electronic device to: visually display the bias setting with the response (Fig 5B, the persona “Abraham Lincoln” is displayed along with the response, but had Southern Aristocrat, Northern Abolitionist been selected, those would be displayed and equate to the claimed “visually display the bias setting with the response”, Fig. 5B, [0114]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Anders such that to provide the response to the user, the one or more computer programs further include computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the electronic device to: visually display the bias setting with the response for reasons similar to those for claim 3.
Consider claim 19, Anders and Arora do not, but Byron discloses second information corresponds to a setting of the user associated with a bias (user may set the QA system persona to answer a question as a “Southern Aristocrat” or “Northern Abolitionist”, using UI shown in Fig. 5A, [0110]-[0112], in which case the answers reflect the biases in the source material used to answer the question, [0113]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Anders and Arora such that the second information corresponds to a setting of the user associated with a bias for reasons similar to those for claim 3.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anders et al. (US 20190325864) in view of Arora et al. (US 20210097239), in further view of Byron et al. (US 20160132590).
Consider claim 13, Anders and Arora do not, but Byron discloses the setting of the user is obtained based on a bias setting user interface displayed by the electronic device (user may set the QA system persona to answer a question as a “Southern Aristocrat” or “Northern Abolitionist”, using UI shown in Fig. 5A, [0110]-[0112], in which case the answers reflect the biases in the source material used to answer the question, [0113]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Anders and Arora such that the setting of the user is obtained based on a bias setting user interface displayed by the electronic device in order to accommodate users who wish a question to be answered from a certain viewpoint, as suggested by Byron ([0016]), predictably satisfying user’s desire for non-factual answers, as suggested by Byron ([0016]). The references cited are analogous art in the same field of natural language processing.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20190354594 Foster discloses building and deploying persona-based language generation models
Ma et al. (“One Chatbot Per Person: Creating Personalized Chatbots based on Implicit User Profiles”. SIGIR ’21, July 11–15, 2021, Virtual Event, Canada) discloses generating a personal chatbot which provides biased responses based on a profile of a user
US 20220164643 Charnock discloses detecting, assessing, and countering disinformation
US 20220392434 Asi discloses reducing biases of generative language models
US 20230161973 Heo discloses generating a language model from which bias has been removed
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jesse Pullias whose telephone number is 571/270-5135. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:00 AM - 4:30 PM. The examiner’s fax number is 571/270-6135.
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, Andrew Flanders can be reached on 571/272-7516.
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.
/Jesse S Pullias/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2655 08/04/26
Prosecution Insights