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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 21 – 40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 – 20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,205,584. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 21 – 40 of the instant application are similar in scope and content of claims 1 - 20 of the cited patent.
It would have been obvious to an artisan at the time the invention was made to use the teaching of claims 1 - 20 of the patent (584) as a general teaching for identifying parameter values to select different styles, to perform method/system as claimed in the present invention. The instant claims obviously encompass the claimed invention of the '584' patent and differ only in the method steps. The extent that the instant claims are broaden and therefore generic to claimed invention of '584' patent [species], In re Goodman 29 USPQ 2d 2010 CAFC 1993, states that a generic claim cannot be issued without a terminal disclaimer, if a species claim has been previously been claimed in a patent/copending application. And since the structure is as recited, the method step is obtained and therefore, obvious.
Here is a comparison between claim 33 of the instant application and claim 1 of the cited patent.
Instant Application 18/777,703
Cited Patent 12,205,584
Comparison
33. A system, comprising:
1. A system, comprising:
Same
one or more computing devices; wherein the one or more computing devices include instructions that upon execution on or across the one or more computing devices:
one or more computing devices; wherein the one or more computing devices include instructions that upon execution on or across the one or more computing devices:
Same
detect, at a dialog-driven application which is configured to fulfill a plurality of intents of end users, a particular intent of an end user during an interaction sequence between the end user and the dialog- driven application; determine, at the dialog-driven application, using a first set of intent- specific configuration settings of the particular intent, a first vocal input style to be indicated to the end user to request the end user to supply a value of a parameter of the first intent, wherein the first set of intent-specific configuration settings of the particular intent differs from a second set of intent-specific configuration settings of another intent of the plurality of intents; wherein the first vocal input style comprises one of: (a) a pronounce-each-letter-separately style, (b) a word-pronunciation style, (c) a spell-using-example-words style, or (d) a custom style associated with a problem domain of the dialog-driven application; and
determine, at a dialog-driven application management service, (a) a first set of alternative vocal input styles for specifying a value of a particular parameter of a dialog-driven application, wherein the first set of alternative vocal input styles includes a word-pronunciation style, a pronounce-each-letter-separately style and a spell-using-example- words style and (b) a default sequence, of at least a subset of alternative vocal input styles of the first set, in which input associated with the particular parameter is to be requested from a client of the dialog-driven application until a value of the particular parameter is determined;
Similar
in response to determining, at the dialog-driven application, the value of the parameter based at least in part on analysis of an utterance of the end user, fulfill the particular intent, wherein the utterance is expressed in the first vocal input style, and wherein the utterance is part of the interaction sequence.
cause to be presented, by the dialog-driven application management service during an execution of the dialog-driven application, in accordance with the default sequence, an audio prompt requesting input in a particular alternative vocal input style of the set of alternative vocal input styles; obtain, at the dialog-driven application management service subsequent to presentation of at least a portion of the audio prompt, vocal input provided by a client of the dialog-driven application, wherein the vocal input is provided at least in part in the particular alternative vocal input style; determine, at the dialog-driven application management service based at least in part on applying a collection of analysis tools to the vocal input provided by the client, a value of the particular parameter, wherein an indication of the particular alternative vocal input style is passed to the collection of analysis tools and utilized by the collection of analysis tools to process the vocal input; and initiate, by the dialog-driven application management service using the value of the particular parameter, a task associated with the dialog- driven application.
Similar
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 21 – 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gelfenbeyn et al. (US PAP 2017/0116982) in view of Nelson (US PAP 2019/0248004).
As per claims 21, 28, and 35, Gelfenbeyn et al. teach a computer-implemented method/system, comprising:
detecting, at a dialog-driven application which is configured to fulfill a plurality of intents of end users, a particular intent of an end user during an interaction sequence between the end user and the dialog-driven application (“The user requests can be interpreted by the natural language dialog system using dialog system “intents” that facilitate mapping between what a user utters and actions taken by the natural language dialog system.”; paragraphs 5 – 14);
determining, at the dialog-driven application, using a first set of intent-specific configuration settings of the particular intent, a first vocal input to be indicated to the end user to request the end user to supply a value of a parameter of the first intent, wherein the first set of intent-specific configuration settings of the particular intent differs from a second set of intent-specific configuration settings of another intent of the plurality of intents (“create dialog agents configurable to run parameter collection dialogs and collect intent parameters. In one example disclosed herein, there is provided a method for intent parameter collection includes receiving a speech input of a user; identifying a dialog system intent associated with the speech input based on at least one predetermined intent keyword, the dialog system intent having required intent parameters; determining whether data for all required intent parameters of the dialog system are available; based on the determination, selectively initiating a parameter collection dialog associated with the dialog system intent”; paragraphs 5 – 14); and
in response to determining, at the dialog-driven application, the value of the parameter based at least in part on analysis of an utterance of the end user, causing the particular intent to be fulfilled, wherein the utterance is expressed in the first vocal input, and wherein the utterance is part of the interaction sequence (“The intent parameters may include at least one of the following: a numerical value, a word, a phrase, a sound, and an image. The at least one of the intent parameters can selected from a list of predetermined values… designate a dialog system entity or a data type for the intent parameters and enabling the developer, by the developer platform, to designate a value type for each of the intent parameters.”; paragraphs 5 – 14).
However, Gelfenbeyn et al. do not specifically teach vocal input styles.
Nelson discloses that configuration parameters include, but is not limited to, the robot head (e.g., a goose head, a monkey head, a rabbit head, or a duck head) to be used to communicate with the user, spoken language, speech accent, speech style (girl's voice, boy's voice, high pitch adult woman's voice, low deep man's voice, etc (paragraphs 55).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to use vocal input styles in dialogue configuration as taught by Nelson in Gelfenbeyn et al. because that would help achieve improved user experience (paragraph 87).
As per claims 22, 29, and 36, Gelfenbeyn et al. in view of Nelson further disclose receiving at least some settings of the first set of intent-specific configuration settings via one or more programmatic interfaces of a cloud computing environment at which the dialog-driven application runs (“The action instruction can be configured to cause a server or a user device to implement a predetermined action based on the action instruction and one or more required intent parameter. The action instruction can include an Application Programming Interface (API) specific response configured to cause an API service.”; paragraphs 10, 57).
As per claims 23, 30, and 37, Gelfenbeyn et al. in view of Nelson further disclose providing, to the end user, an audio prompt indicating the first vocal input style (“speech input of the user in response to the at least one predetermined prompt and extracting at least one of the required intent parameters from the at least one additional speech input until all of the missing intent parameters are collected.”; Gelfenbeyn et al. paragraphs 5 – 14; Nelson, paragraph 55).
As per claims 24, 31, and 38, Gelfenbeyn et al. in view of Nelson further disclose the first set of intent-specific configuration settings specifies a second vocal input style to be indicated to the end user to request the end user to supply a value of another parameter of the first intent (Gelfenbeyn et al. paragraphs 5 – 14; Nelson, paragraph 55).
As per claims 25, 32, and 39, Gelfenbeyn et al. in view of Nelson further disclose the second set of intent-specific configuration settings specifies a second vocal input style to be indicated to the end user to request the end user to supply a value of a parameter of the other intent (Gelfenbeyn et al. paragraphs 5 – 14; Nelson, paragraph 55).
As per claims 26, 33, and 40, Gelfenbeyn et al. in view of Nelson further disclose the first vocal input style comprises one of: (a) a pronounce-each-letter-separately style, (b) a word-pronunciation style, (c) a spell-using-example-words style, or (d) a custom style associated with a problem domain of the dialog-driven application (“Given the adaptive dialogue strategy of the automated companion in light of the observations of the user and the environment, the user may respond providing the spelling of word “basketball.” (at 416). Observations are continuously made as to how enthusiastic the user is in answering the spelling question.”; Nelson, paragraphs 55, 83, 84).
As per claims 27, 34, Gelfenbeyn et al. in view of Nelson further disclose determining, at the dialog-driven application, the value of the parameter by analyzing the utterance of the end user using one or more of: (a) an automated speech recognition tool or (b) a natural language understanding tool (“when a user requests the natural language dialog system to order a pizza, the natural language dialog system needs to acquire parameters associated the pizza such as a size, a crust type, toppings, a vendor, a time and an address for delivery.”; Gelfenbeyn et al. paragraphs 5, 6).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Pyo et al. teach Method For Generating Dialog Prosody Structure, And Speech Synthesis Method And System Employing The Same. Andruszkiewicz et al. teach ELECTRONIC DEVICE PROVIDING RESPONSE. McDuff et al. teach LINGUISTIC STYLE MATCHING AGENT. Lenke et al. teach METHODS FOR INCREASING AUTONOMOUS VEHICLE SAFETY AND FLEXIBILITY USING VOICE INTERACTION.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LEONARD SAINT-CYR whose telephone number is (571)272-4247. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Richemond Dorvil can be reached at (571)272-7602. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/LEONARD SAINT-CYR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2658
Prosecution Insights