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 .
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 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Independent claims 1 and 4-5 recite “acquire …”, “convert …”, “measure …”, “select …”, and “execute …”. These limitations, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “processing circuitry”. For example, but for the “processor circuitry” language, these steps in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually converting acquired characters strings into vectors, measuring the similarity between vectors, selecting a skill to process an input. All of these steps can be performed in the mind and/or using a pen and paper. 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 additional elements - using a processor to perform these steps. The use of a processing circuitry is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer device performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The 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 step of “acquire …” is merely for the purpose of data gathering and/or insignificant extra-solution activity that amount 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.
Regarding dependent claims 2-3, the steps of “measur[ing] a distance … by means of a cosine distance” and carrying out “conversation” based on the measured distance exceeding a threshold, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually performing these steps. All of these steps can be performed in the mind and/or using a pen and paper. 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Jalaluddin et al. (USPG 2022/0230000, hereinafter Jalaluddin).
Regarding claims 1 and 4-5, Jalaluddin discloses an information processing device, method, and non-transitory CRM, comprising:
processing circuitry configured to:
acquire a first character string input by a user (figure 3, utterance 302; also see paragraphs 54 and/or 99 for converting to text) and a second character string indicating a skill (paragraph 120, “The intents information 354 includes, for each intent associated with the skill bot system 300, a list of utterances that are representative of and illustrate the meaning of the intent and are typically associated with a task performable by that intent”);
convert the first character string and the second character string acquired into vectors (paragraphs 138-146, vectorizing inputs);
measure a distance between a meaning of a first character string and a meaning of a second character string (paragraph 121, “Conversation manager 330 receives, as an output of intent classifier 320, an indication 322 of a particular intent, identified by the intent classifier 320, as best matching the utterance that was input to the intent classifier 320”), wherein the first and second character strings are converted into vectors (paragraphs 138-146, vectorizing inputs);
select a skill based on the distance measured (process in figures 3-4 and/or paragraph 126, “skill selection instructions 428 may cause the selection of a chatbot and/or skill for interacting with a user in response to parsing skill data 424”); and
execute the skill selected (paragraph 122, “the conversation manager 330 is implemented using a state machine configured to execute a dialog flow for the identified intent. The state machine can include a default starting state (e.g., for when the intent is invoked without any additional input) and one or more additional states, where each state has associated with it actions to be performed by the skill bot (e.g., executing a purchase transaction) and/or dialog (e.g., questions, responses) to be presented to the user”).
Regarding claim 3, Jalaluddin further discloses the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to select a basic conversation in a case where the distance measured is larger than a predetermined threshold (paragraphs 97 and/or 113, using thresholding criterion).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jalaluddin in view of Pan et al. (USPG 2021/0083994).
Regarding claim 2, Jalaluddin fails to explicitly disclose, however, Pan teaches the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to measure a distance between a meaning of a first character string and a meaning of a second character string, which are converted into vectors, by means of a cosine distance (paragraphs 215 and/or 225, the use of cosine similarity as a distance measurement).
Since Jalaluddin and Pan are analogous in the art because they are from the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the known technique of utilizing a cosine similarity as distance measurement. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable since the use of that known technique provides the rationale to arrive at a conclusion of obviousness. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (U.S. 2007).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Xu et al. (USPG 2022/0171947) teach a natural language processing method using distance-based logit value that is considered pertinent to the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUYEN X VO whose telephone number is (571)272-7631. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8-4.
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, Bhavesh Mehta can be reached at 571-272-7453. 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.
/HUYEN X VO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2656
Prosecution Insights