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 .
Drawings
The drawings were received on 12/16/2024. These drawings are accepted.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claim(s) 1-8,10-11,14-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Acero et al (US Publication No.: 20180330723).
Claim 1, Acero et al discloses
an automated speech recognizer configured to generate text transcriptions from an utterance (Fig. 7b, label speech input and speech as the utterance, label text representations as the plurality of text transcriptions outputted by label 730 (paragraph 219));
a natural language understanding subsystem configured to receive the text transcriptions (Fig. 7b, label 732 receives text representations.) and provide slot-intent models as output including a slot-intent model corresponding to each of at least two of the text transcriptions (Paragraph 302 discloses a plurality of candidate intents (slot-intent models) to the one or more candidate text representations. Depending on the text transcriptions (candidate text representations), there can be more than one candidate intent.),
wherein each slot intent model includes an intent and one or more slots having key-value pairs (Fig. 7b, label 732 receives text representations. Paragraph 302 discloses providing a plurality of candidate intents to the one or more candidate text representations. Each of the candidate text representation includes the actionable intent. Paragraphs 227-228 discloses the natural language processing includes ontology, which correlates the actionable intent with property. Paragraph 237 discloses the use of the ontology to select one or more candidate actionable intents from the set of candidate actionable intents. Paragraph 230 discloses the property as characteristics or key-value pairs or characteristics within the ontology. This indicates slot intent models as candidate actionable intents, wherein the candidate actionable intent includes property (key-value pairs).); and
a fulfillment manager configured to receive the slot-intent models and start a service based thereon (Fig. 7b, label 736 receives the plurality of candidate intents (paragraph 305) and performs a task or command or action based on the candidate intents.), wherein the fulfillment manager includes:
a fulfillment strategy data store that stores a plurality of fulfillment strategies (Paragraph 225 discloses task flow as a series of programmed actions.), wherein each fulfillment strategy of the plurality of fulfillment strategies describes rules for starting a service (paragraph 225 discloses a task flow is a series of programmed actions (fulfillment strategies) and steps that the digital assistant takes in order to perform the task.);
a strategy selector (Fig. 8, label 836) that selects, for at least two of the slot-intent models (Paragraph 227-228 discloses candidate actionable intents or slot-intent models.), a selected fulfillment strategies from the fulfillment strategies based on a given slot-intent model (Fig. 7b, label 736 or 836 of Fig. 8 selects the fulfillment strategies (candidate task flows) for each candidate user intent (candidate actionable intent or given slot-intent model). Paragraph 305 discloses “a plurality of candidate task flows are determined (e.g. using task flow processing module 736 or 836) from the plurality of candidate user intents of block 1112. Specifically, each candidate user intent of the plurality of candidate user intents is mapped to a corresponding candidate task flow of the plurality of candidate task flows.”),
wherein the selected fulfillment strategies are each paired with a corresponding one of the slot-intent models to generate pairings (Paragraph 305 discloses mapping each candidate user intent of plurality of candidate user intents (slot-intent models) to each candidate task flow of plurality of candidate task flows (fulfillment strategy). The pairings are considered candidate user intent or candidate actionable intent corresponding to candidate task flow.); and
an arbitrator (Fig. 8, label 838) configured to receive the pairings (Paragraph 273 discloses ranking pairings (intent to task flow mapping), which indicates reception of pairings. Paragraph 306 discloses 836 determines task flow scores. Paragraph 311 discloses 838 ranks the candidate task flows.), choose a chosen pairing of the pairings by ranking the selected fulfillment strategies based on a set of confidence scores (Paragraph 273 discloses the task flow manager maps each of the four candidate user intents to four respective candidate task flows. Task flow score is determined for each candidate task flow. Ranking of the candidate task flows is performed and the highest ranking candidate task flow is selected.), and initiate one of the services from the plurality of services associated with the chosen pairing, thereby resulting in an initiated service (Label 838 implements the selected candidate task flow, thereby initiating service.).
Claim 2, Acero et al discloses each set of confidence scores comprises at least one of: an ASR confidence score, a NLU confidence score, or a strategy selection confidence score. (Paragraph 310 discloses task flow score is based on speech recognition confidence score, intent confidence score, flow parameter score, etc.)
Claim 3, Acero et al discloses the automated speech recognizer is further configured to provide the ASR confidence score to the arbitrator (Paragraph 266 discloses “Natural language processing module 832 provides the four candidate user intents to task flow processing module 836. … In addition, the associated speech recognition confidence scores and intent confidence scores are provided to task flow processing module 836.” Paragraph 258 discloses STT 830 provides candidate text representations and associated speech recognition confidence scores to 832.).
Claim 4, Acero et al discloses the natural language understanding subsystem is further configured to provide the NLU confidence score to the arbitrator (Paragraph 258 discloses NLU determines associated intent confidence score for each candidate user intent. Paragraph 266 discloses the NLU provides the speech recognition confidence score and intent confidence score to the task flow processing module 836.).
Claim 5, Acero et al discloses the strategy selector is further configured to provide the strategy selection confidence score to the arbitrator (Paragraph 273 discloses task flow score or strategy selection confidence score is used in ranking, indicating the arbitrator 838 receives the score.).
Claim 6, Acero et al discloses the arbitrator is further configured to rank the selected fulfillment strategies by performing a multi-level confidence score analysis (Paragraph 273 discloses the task flow score, used to rank the task flows, is determined based on speech recognition confidence score, intent confidence score, etc.).
Claim 7, Acero et al discloses the multi-level confidence score analysis is based on a multi-level confidence score arbitration rules (Paragraph 273 discloses the task parameter score is determined for resolving one or more missing task parameters for the respective candidate task flow.).
Claim 8, Acero et al discloses at least one of the multi-level confidence score arbitration rules weights one or more members of the set of confidence scores more heavily than others (Paragraph 248 discloses prioritizing or weighting actionable intent of corresponding query or text representation where highest ranked actionable intent associated task flow is executed while a lower ranked actionable intent associated task flow is implemented when an error occurs in the highest ranked actionable intent.).
Claim 10, Acero et al discloses the pairings comprise slot-intent model fulfillment strategy (SIM-FS) pairings associated with the utterance (Paragraph 267 discloses candidate intents with corresponding task flows as pairings associated with the text representation or query.).
Claim 11, Acero et al discloses each set of confidence scores is associated with a respective selected fulfillment strategy (Paragraph 273 discloses task flow score is based on the speech recognition confidence score, intent confidence score, respective task parameter for each candidate task flow.).
Claim 14, Acero et al discloses the initiated service includes to playback a media content item associated with the chosen pairing via a media playback device (Fig. 7, label 738 access appropriate service model for a service and generate requests for service in accordance with the protocols and APIs required by the service according to the service model. Label 738 performs the service as per the task flow module 736. Fig. 4, label 400 shows a device as multimedia player device. Depending on the task flow from 736, the service or initiated service includes playback a media content item.).
Claim 15, Acero et al discloses the initiated service includes to recommend playback of a media content item associated with the chosen pairing. (Fig. 7, label 738 access appropriate service model for a service and generate requests for service in accordance with the protocols and APIs required by the service according to the service model. Label 738 performs the service as per the task flow module 736. Depending on the task flow from 736, the initiated service includes suggestion for playback of a media.).
Claim 16, Acero et al discloses
generating text transcriptions from an utterance (Fig. 7b, label speech input and speech as the utterance, label text representations as the plurality of text transcriptions outputted by label 730 (paragraph 219));
generating slot-intent models corresponding to at least two of the text transcriptions (Paragraph 302 discloses a plurality of candidate intents (slot-intent models) to the one or more candidate text representations. Depending on the text transcriptions (candidate text representations), there can be more than one candidate intent.),
each slot intent model includes an intent and one or more slots having key-value pairs (Fig. 7b, label 732 receives text representations. Paragraph 302 discloses providing a plurality of candidate intents to the one or more candidate text representations. Each of the candidate text representation includes the actionable intent. Paragraphs 227-228 discloses the natural language processing includes ontology, which correlates the actionable intent with property. Paragraph 237 discloses the use of the ontology to select one or more candidate actionable intents from the set of candidate actionable intents. Paragraph 230 discloses the property as characteristics or key-value pairs or characteristics within the ontology. This indicates slot intent models as candidate actionable intents, wherein the candidate actionable intent includes property (key-value pairs).); and
starting a service based thereon (Fig. 7b, label 736 receives the plurality of candidate intents (paragraph 305) and performs a task or command or action based on the candidate intents.) including:
selecting a fulfillment strategy from the fulfillment strategies (Fig. 7b, label 736 or 836 of Fig. 8 selects the fulfillment strategies (candidate task flows) for each candidate user intent (candidate actionable intent or given slot-intent model). Paragraph 305 discloses “a plurality of candidate task flows are determined (e.g. using task flow processing module 736 or 836) from the plurality of candidate user intents of block 1112. Specifically, each candidate user intent of the plurality of candidate user intents is mapped to a corresponding candidate task flow of the plurality of candidate task flows.”) for at least two of the slot-intent models (Paragraph 227-228 discloses candidate actionable intents or slot-intent models.),
the selected fulfillment strategies are each being paired with a corresponding one of the slot-intent models to generate pairings (Paragraph 305 discloses mapping each candidate user intent of plurality of candidate user intents (slot-intent models) to each candidate task flow of plurality of candidate task flows (fulfillment strategy). The pairings are considered candidate user intent or candidate actionable intent corresponding to candidate task flow.), each fulfilment strategy describes rules for starting one of a plurality of services (paragraph 225 discloses a task flow is a series of programmed actions (fulfillment strategies) and steps that the digital assistant takes in order to perform the task.); and
choosing a chosen pairing of the pairings by ranking the selected fulfillment strategies based on a set of confidence scores (Paragraph 273 discloses the task flow manager maps each of the four candidate user intents to four respective candidate task flows. Task flow score is determined for each candidate task flow. Ranking of the candidate task flows is performed and the highest ranking candidate task flow is selected. Paragraph 306 discloses 836 determines task flow scores. Paragraph 311 discloses 838 ranks the candidate task flows.); and
initiating the service associated with the chosen pairing, thereby resulting in an initiated service (Label 838 implements the selected candidate task flow, thereby initiating service.).
Claim 17, Acero et al discloses each set of confidence scores comprises at least one of: an ASR confidence score, a NLU confidence score, or a strategy selection confidence score. (Paragraph 310 discloses task flow score is based on speech recognition confidence score, intent confidence score, flow parameter score, etc.)
Claim 18, Acero et al discloses the automated speech recognizer is further configured to provide the ASR confidence score to the arbitrator (Paragraph 266 discloses “Natural language processing module 832 provides the four candidate user intents to task flow processing module 836. … In addition, the associated speech recognition confidence scores and intent confidence scores are provided to task flow processing module 836.” Paragraph 258 discloses STT 830 provides candidate text representations and associated speech recognition confidence scores to 832.).
Claim 19, Acero et al discloses the natural language understanding subsystem is further configured to provide the NLU confidence score to the arbitrator (Paragraph 258 discloses NLU determines associated intent confidence score for each candidate user intent. Paragraph 266 discloses the NLU provides the speech recognition confidence score and intent confidence score to the task flow processing module 836.).
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, 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) 12,13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Acero et al (US Publication No.: 20180330723) in view of Vora et al (US Publication No.: 20180300028).
Claim 12, Acero et al discloses ranking the selected fulfillment strategies (Paragraph 273), but fails to disclose ranking is performed using a machine learned ranking approach.
Vora et al discloses ranking the plurality of actions for the particular channel for the particular user based at least in part on a machine learning model. (paragraph 52, Fig. 4, label 406) It would be obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the application to simply substitute one well known element of ranking actions or task flows as disclosed by Acero et al with another well-known element of ranking actions using machine learning model as disclosed by Vora et al so to yield predictable results of ranking actions and selecting the best action to perform to satisfy the user’s desire, hence improving the user’s experience with digital assistants.
Claim 13, Acero et al discloses the machine learned ranking approach comprises at least one of: LambdaMart, LamdaRank or RankNet. (Paragraph 28 discloses “machine learning techniques can be used to rank actions and other items”. This indicates machine learning techniques are used for ranking actions, wherein the recited limitation lists types of machine learning techniques or approaches that can be used for ranking actions.).
Claim(s) 9,20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Acero et al (US Publication No.: 20180330723) in view of Evermann (US Publication No.: 20140365209).
Claim 9, Acero et al discloses at least one of the multi-level confidence score arbitration rules calculates a sum of the confidence scores associated with each pairing and compares the respective sums (Paragraph 273 discloses task flow score is based on the speech recognition score, intent confidence score and task parameter score or any combination thereof. Any combination thereof indicates a summation of confidence scores for each task flow to candidate user intent. Ranking of such task flow scores is determined.).
Although Acero et al discloses a combination of speech recognition score, intent confidence score and task parameter score as the task flow score (paragraph 273), Acero et al fails to disclose determining confidence score via a calculated summation.
Everman discloses a composite confidence score is a combination of respective speech recognition confidence score and respective intent deduction score. (Paragraph 165) It would be obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the application to substituted one well known element of confidence score determination as disclosed by Acero et al with another well-known element of confidence score determination as disclosed by Everman so to yield predictable results of generating confidence score.
Claim 20, Acero et al discloses at least one of the multi-level confidence score arbitration rules calculates a sum of the confidence scores associated with each pairing and compares the respective sums (Paragraph 273 discloses task flow score is based on the speech recognition score, intent confidence score and task parameter score or any combination thereof. Any combination thereof indicates a summation of confidence scores for each task flow to candidate user intent. Ranking of such task flow scores is determined.).
Although Acero et al discloses a combination of speech recognition score, intent confidence score and task parameter score as the task flow score (paragraph 273), Acero et al fails to disclose determining confidence score via a calculated summation.
Everman discloses a composite confidence score is a combination of respective speech recognition confidence score and respective intent deduction score. (Paragraph 165) It would be obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the application to substituted one well known element of confidence score determination as disclosed by Acero et al with another well-known element of confidence score determination as disclosed by Everman so to yield predictable results of generating confidence score, hence improving the digital assistant’s ability to perform actions satisfying the user’s query.
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.
Claim 1,16 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1,3,8,9,11 of U.S. Patent No. 11087749 in view of Acero et al (US Publication No.: 20180330723).
The recited claimed language of claim 1,16 broadly anticipates the claimed invention of claims 1,3,8,9,11 of the patent. Although the recited invention of the parent does not recite the “arbitrator configured to receive the pairings, choose a chosen pairing of the pairings by ranking the selected fulfillment strategies based on a set of confidence scores”, Acero et al discloses an arbitrator (Fig. 8, label 838) configured to receive the pairings (Paragraph 273 discloses ranking pairings (intent to task flow mapping), which indicates reception of pairings. Paragraph 306 discloses 836 determines task flow scores. Paragraph 311 discloses 838 ranks the candidate task flows.), choose a chosen pairing of the pairings by ranking the selected fulfillment strategies based on a set of confidence scores (Paragraph 273 discloses the task flow manager maps each of the four candidate user intents to four respective candidate task flows. Task flow score is determined for each candidate task flow. Ranking of the candidate task flows is performed and the highest ranking candidate task flow is selected.), and initiate one of the services from the plurality of services associated with the chosen pairing, thereby resulting in an initiated service (Label 838 implements the selected candidate task flow, thereby initiating service.).
It would be obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the parent with Acero et al’s arbitrator so to improve the digital assistant’s ability to initiate services or actions that would satisfy the user’s desire.
Claims 1,14,15,16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 16,17,18,26 of U.S. Patent No. 12183331 in view of Acero et al (US Publication No.: 20180330723.
The recited claimed language of claims 1,16 this application broadly anticipates the recited claimed invention of the parent’s claims 16,26 respectively, but the parent fails to recite “arbitrator configured to receive the pairings, choose a chosen pairing of the pairings by ranking the selected fulfillment strategies based on a set of confidence scores”.
Acero et al discloses an arbitrator (Fig. 8, label 838) configured to receive the pairings (Paragraph 273 discloses ranking pairings (intent to task flow mapping), which indicates reception of pairings. Paragraph 306 discloses 836 determines task flow scores. Paragraph 311 discloses 838 ranks the candidate task flows.), choose a chosen pairing of the pairings by ranking the selected fulfillment strategies based on a set of confidence scores (Paragraph 273 discloses the task flow manager maps each of the four candidate user intents to four respective candidate task flows. Task flow score is determined for each candidate task flow. Ranking of the candidate task flows is performed and the highest ranking candidate task flow is selected.), and initiate one of the services from the plurality of services associated with the chosen pairing, thereby resulting in an initiated service (Label 838 implements the selected candidate task flow, thereby initiating service.).
It would be obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the parent with Acero et al’s arbitrator so to improve the digital assistant’s ability to initiate services or actions that would satisfy the user’s desire.
Claim 14,15 recites similar language to parent’s claim 17,18.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LINDA WONG whose telephone number is (571)272-6044. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5.
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 C Flanders can be reached at 571-272-7516. 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.
/LINDA WONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2655
Prosecution Insights