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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/12/2024 was filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 1-20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent Nos. 11,604,929 (hereinafter ‘929) and 12,197,872 (hereinafter ‘872). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are obvious variations of each other.
Regarding Claim 1 (drawn to a system):
Current Application
Claim 1:
A virtual assistant system, comprising:
memory; and
one or more processors coupled to the memory and configured to:
generate a plurality of templated responses including data obtained in response to a plurality of application calls for a plurality of applications; and
generate a natural language response based on the plurality of templated responses.
‘929
Claim 1:
A virtual assistant system, comprising:
a memory; and
one or more processors coupled to the memory and configured to:
receive an input from a user;
identify a plurality of applications to be called based on the input;
generate a call to each application of the plurality of applications, each call including first data based on the input;
receive, for each given application of the plurality of applications, second data from the call to the given application;
generate, for each given application of the plurality of applications, at least one templated response including some or all of the second data;
concatenate each templated response generated for each given application of the plurality of applications to create a concatenated sequence; and
generate a natural language response based on the concatenated sequence
Current Application
Claim 1:
A virtual assistant system, comprising:
memory; and
one or more processors coupled to the memory and configured to:
generate a plurality of templated responses including data obtained in response to a plurality of application calls for a plurality of applications; and
generate a natural language response based on the plurality of templated responses.
‘872
Claim 1:
A virtual assistant system, comprising:
memory; and
one or more processors coupled to the memory and configured to:
generate, for each given application of a plurality of applications, a templated response including data obtained in response to an application call;
concatenate each templated response generated for each given application of the plurality of applications to create a concatenated sequence; and
generate a natural language response based on the concatenated sequence.
Regarding Claim 11 (drawn to a system):
Current Application
Claim 11:
A computer-implemented method, comprising:
generating, by one or more processors of a processing system, a plurality of templated responses including data in response to a plurality of application calls for a plurality of applications; and
generating, by the one or more processors, a natural language response based on the plurality of templated responses.
‘929
Claim 1:
A computer-implemented method for generating a natural language response, comprising:
receiving, by one or more processors of a processing system, an input from a user;
identifying, by the one or more processors, a plurality of applications to be called based on the input;
generating, by the one or more processors, a call to each application of the plurality of applications, each call including first data based on the input;
receiving, by the one or more processors, for each given application of the plurality of applications, second data from the call to the given application;
generating, by the one or more processors, for each given application of the plurality of applications, at least one templated response including some or all of the second data;
concatenating, by the one or more processors, each templated response generated for each given application of the plurality of applications to create a concatenated sequence; and
generating, by the one or more processors, a natural language response based on the concatenated sequence.
Current Application
Claim 11:
A computer-implemented method, comprising:
generating, by one or more processors of a processing system, a plurality of templated responses including data in response to a plurality of application calls for a plurality of applications; and
generating, by the one or more processors, a natural language response based on the plurality of templated responses.
‘872
Claim 11:
A computer-implemented method, comprising:
generating, by one or more processors of a processing system, for each given application of a plurality of applications, a templated response including data in response to an application call;
concatenating, by the one or more processors, each templated response generated for each given application of the plurality of applications to create a concatenated sequence; and
generating, by the one or more processors, a natural language response based on the concatenated sequence.
As shown in the tables above, it is clear that all the elements of the application claims1 and 11 are to be found in patent claims 1 and 11, as the application claims 1 and 11 fully encompasses patent claims1 and 11. The difference between the application claims 1 and 11 and the patent claims 1 and 11 lies in the fact that the patent claims includes more elements and is thus more specific. Thus the invention of claims 1 and 11 of the patent is in effect a “species” of the “generic” invention of the application claims 1 and 11. It has been held that the generic invention is “anticipated” by the “species”. See In re Goodman, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Claim 2 of the current application corresponds to claim 2 of U.S. Patent Nos. 11,604,929 and 12,197,872.
Claim 3 of the current application corresponds to claim 3 of U.S. Patent Nos. 11,604,929 and 12,197,872.
Claim 4 of the current application corresponds to claim 4 of U.S. Patent Nos. 11,604,929 and 12,197,872.
Claim 5 of the current application corresponds to claim 5 of U.S. Patent Nos. 11,604,929 and 12,197,872.
Claim 6 of the current application corresponds to claim 6 of U.S. Patent Nos. 11,604,929 and 12,197,872.
Claim 7 of the current application corresponds to claim 7 of U.S. Patent Nos. 11,604,929 and 12,197,872.
Claim 8 of the current application corresponds to claim 8 of U.S. Patent Nos. 11,604,929 and 12,197,872.
Claim 9 of the current application corresponds to claim 9 of U.S. Patent Nos. 11,604,929 and 12,197,872.
Claim 10 of the current application corresponds to claim 10 of U.S. Patent Nos. 11,604,929 and 12,197,872.
Claim 12 of the current application corresponds to claim 12 of U.S. Patent Nos. 11,604,929 and 12,197,872.
Claim 13 of the current application corresponds to claim 13 of U.S. Patent Nos. 11,604,929 and 12,197,872.
Claim 14 of the current application corresponds to claim 14 of U.S. Patent Nos. 11,604,929 and 12,197,872.
Claim 15 of the current application corresponds to claim 15 of U.S. Patent Nos. 11,604,929 and 12,197,872.
Claim 16 of the current application corresponds to claim 16 of U.S. Patent Nos. 11,604,929 and 12,197,872.
Claim 17 of the current application corresponds to claim 17 of U.S. Patent Nos. 11,604,929 and 12,197,872.
Claim 18 of the current application corresponds to claim 18 of U.S. Patent Nos. 11,604,929 and 12,197,872.
Claim 19 of the current application corresponds to claim 19 of U.S. Patent Nos. 11,604,929 and 12,197,872.
Claim 20 of the current application corresponds to claim 20 of U.S. Patent Nos. 11,604,929 and 12,197,872.
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)(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, 3-11,and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Valles (US 2004/0083092).
Regarding Claim 1, Valles discloses a virtual assistant system, comprising:
memory (The server (2) is a computer equipped with a storage media and a processor, such that the storage media contains the server software (1) and the server software dynamically configures the processor, so that such processor can perform all the functions described herein) (page 6, paragraph [0084]); and
one or more processors coupled to the memory (The server (2) is a computer equipped with a storage media and a processor, such that the storage media contains the server software (1) and the server software dynamically configures the processor, so that such processor can perform all the functions described herein) (page 6, paragraph [0084]) and configured to:
generate a plurality of templated responses including data obtained in response to a plurality of application calls for a plurality of applications (The answer template contains calls to a proprietary application (1401). When the proprietary application is called, the answer engine uses the return values (1403, 1404, 1405, 1406 . . . ) from the application as expressed in the template file and the paragraphs in the answer template (1422) to construct a document of answers as depicted in FIG. 15) (page 7, paragraph [0116]); and
generate a natural language response based on the plurality of templated responses (As it will be explained below in full detail, the heuristic answer engine (106) searches the document of FIG. 15 for the best answer. The answer is therefore retrieved and sent back to the main process. The main process then sends the answer back to the user interface (100)) (page 7, paragraph [0116]).
Regarding Claim 3, Valles discloses the system, wherein, the one or more processors are further configured to receive the data from the plurality of application calls, the data including at least one templated response different from the plurality of templated responses (At this point the user may not be satisfied with the answer, in which case he can re-phrase the request, or he can make a totally different request) (page 7, paragraph [0116]).
Regarding Claim 4, Valles discloses the system, wherein:
the one or more processors are further configured to receive the data from the plurality of application calls, the data including at least one template corresponding an application call of the plurality of application calls and information corresponding the application call of the plurality of application calls (he second part of the answer template (as shown in FIG. 14B) contains a collection of paragraphs, each being a potential answer. Each paragraph has variables that are specific for a user session. Each variable corresponds to a variable appearing in the first part of the answer file. The variables customize the answers for a specific user) (page 14, paragraph [0212]); and
the generation of one of the plurality of templated responses includes combining at least the information corresponding to the application call of the plurality of application calls and the at least one template corresponding to the application call of the plurality of application calls (FIG. 15 shows an example of a text of customized answers. For example, in a banking application, one of the answers that may be delivered to the user is the balance in the savings account. As shown in FIG. 14A, a returned value from a method (1402) would be stored in an SAVEBALANCE variable (1403). When the HAE combines the populated variables with the paragraphs in FIG. 14B the value of the SAVEBALANCE variable in the paragraph (1415) would be replace by its value (1500), thereby yielding the answers in FIG. 15) (page 14, paragraph [0116]).
Regarding Claim 5, Valles discloses the system, wherein, the generation of the one of the plurality of templated responses includes combining at least data based on input received from a user with the information corresponding to the application call of the plurality of application calls and the at least one template corresponding to the application call of the plurality of application calls (FIG. 15 shows an example of a text of customized answers. For example, in a banking application, one of the answers that may be delivered to the user is the balance in the savings account. As shown in FIG. 14A, a returned value from a method (1402) would be stored in an SAVEBALANCE variable (1403). When the HAE combines the populated variables with the paragraphs in FIG. 14B the value of the SAVEBALANCE variable in the paragraph (1415) would be replace by its value (1500), thereby yielding the answers in FIG. 15) (page 14, paragraph [0116]).
Regarding Claim 6, Valles discloses the system, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to:
select, for each given application of the plurality of applications, at least one template based on data associated with an application call of the plurality of application calls to that given application (FIG. 15 shows an example of a text of customized answers. For example, in a banking application, one of the answers that may be delivered to the user is the balance in the savings account) (page 147, paragraph [0212]); and
generation of the plurality of the templated responses includes combining, for each given application of the plurality of applications, at least the data associated with the application call of the plurality of application calls to that given application and the at least one template (When the HAE combines the populated variables with the paragraphs in FIG. 14B the value of the SAVEBALANCE variable in the paragraph (1415) would be replace by its value (1500), thereby yielding the answers in FIG. 15) (page 14, paragraph [0116]).
Regarding Claim 7, Valles discloses the system, wherein, for at least one application of the plurality of applications, the one or more processors are configured to generate a templated response of the plurality of templated responses by combining at least data associated with the application call of the plurality of application calls to the at least one application, at least one template based on the data associated the application call to that given application, and data based on input received from a user (FIG. 15 shows an example of a text of customized answers. For example, in a banking application, one of the answers that may be delivered to the user is the balance in the savings account. As shown in FIG. 14A, a returned value from a method (1402) would be stored in an SAVEBALANCE variable (1403). When the HAE combines the populated variables with the paragraphs in FIG. 14B the value of the SAVEBALANCE variable in the paragraph (1415) would be replace by its value (1500), thereby yielding the answers in FIG. 15) (page 14, paragraph [0116]).
Regarding Claim 8, Valles discloses the system, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to receive input from a user as a text entry (As already mentioned, the client software can take as input a multiplicity of text requests) (page 6, paragraph [0082]), and to provide the natural language response in response to the received input (As it will be explained below in full detail, the heuristic answer engine (106) searches the document of FIG. 15 for the best answer. The answer is therefore retrieved and sent back to the main process) (page 7, paragraph [0116]).
Regarding Claim 9, Valles discloses the system, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to receive input from a user as a verbal command (As depicted in FIG. 1A, the system herein can be used with a speech application, which is typically equipped with a speech recognition engine (10), which converts speaker utterances into text, and a text-to-speech interface (8), which synthesizes text into speech) (page 6, paragraph [0082]), and to provide the natural language response in response to the received input (As it will be explained below in full detail, the heuristic answer engine (106) searches the document of FIG. 15 for the best answer. The answer is therefore retrieved and sent back to the main process) (page 7, paragraph [0116]).
Regarding Claim 10, Valles discloses the system, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to receive input from a user as a result of user interaction with a user interface (When the user makes the request in natural language, the client interface reads in this request as a string. The main process (101) takes the natural language string from the user interface (100)) (pages 6 and 7, paragraph [0086]), and to provide the natural language response in response to the received input (As it will be explained below in full detail, the heuristic answer engine (106) searches the document of FIG. 15 for the best answer. The answer is therefore retrieved and sent back to the main process) (page 7, paragraph [0116]).
Claim 11 is rejected for the same reason as claim 1.
Claim 13 is rejected for the same reason as claim 3.
Claim 14 is rejected for the same reason as claim 4.
Claim 15 is rejected for the same reason as claim 5.
Claim 16 is rejected for the same reason as claim 6.
Claim 17 is rejected for the same reason as claim 7.
Claim 18 is rejected for the same reason as claim 8.
Claim 19 is rejected for the same reason as claim 9.
Claim 20 is rejected for the same reason as claim 10.
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 2 and 12 /are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Valles in view of Park et al. (US 2019/0286480).
Regarding Claim 2, Valles fails to teach the system, wherein the one or more processors are configured to generate the natural language response based on the plurality of templated responses using a learned sequence-to-sequence transformer.
Park et al teaches the system, wherein the one or more processors are configured to generate the natural language response based on the plurality of templated responses using a learned sequence-to-sequence (The path rule may include, for example, the sequence of states of the electronic device 100) (page 9, paragraph [0127]) transformer (The NLU module 600 may learn user speech and generate a model, and may generate a path rule corresponding to a user input using the generated model. The learned model may include, for example, a domain and a path rule related to the domain. The domain may correspond to an app stored in a memory of the UE 100) (page 9, paragraph [0128]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Valles with the teachings of Park to improve functionality by training a language model with predetermined responses in order to provide the responses to the application calls.
Claim 12 is rejected for the same reason as claim 2.
Cited Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Carey (US 2019/0057074) discloses automating patent preparation
Conclusion
.Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SATWANT K SINGH whose telephone number is (571)272-7468. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 9:00 AM to 6:00 PM EST.
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.
/SATWANT K SINGH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2653
Prosecution Insights