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 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,197,869. Although, the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the present application are broader in scope than the claims of the patent. As an example, the pending application claim includes similar language as claim 1 of the patent claims except: “applying the ensemble scoring rules to modify the respective ensemble artifact score adjustment of at least a portion of the NLU-scored artifacts based, at least in part, on the NLU indicators and the concept indicators; and
combining the respective ensemble artifact score adjustment and a respective NLU-score of each of the NLU-scored artifacts to determine a respective ensemble artifact score for each of the NLU-scored artifacts, yielding a set of ensemble-scored artifacts”.
Omission of an element and its function in a combination is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same functions as before. In re KARLSON (CCPA) 136 USPQ 184 (1963). In re Van Ornum and Stang, 214 USPQ 761.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson et al. (US Pub 2018/0095962) in view of Alexander et al. (US Pub 2020/0097496).
Regarding claim 1, Anderson discloses a method comprising:
receiving a user utterance (para 0019, 0024);
identifying one or more linguistic patterns based on the user utterance (para 0036, 0041);
generating concept indicators associated with the user utterance by performing concept matching regarding the user utterance (para 0041-0043 - similar intent-entity model can be used to determine matching concepts such as intent types and also see col. 4),
generating ensemble-scored artifacts for the user utterance based at least in part on the concept indicators (para 0043-0045 - such as NLC given extra weight etc.); and
responding to the user utterance based at least in part on the ensemble-scored artifacts (see fig. 2, element 58; para 0044).
Anderson does not discloses obtaining respective semantic vectors associated with the one or more linguistic patterns; wherein performing the concept matching includes processing the respective semantic vectors via a concept model;
Alexander discloses obtaining respective semantic vectors associated with the one or more linguistic patterns (see abstract; para 0043, 0049); wherein performing the concept matching includes processing the respective semantic vectors via a concept model (para 0050 – “The vector comparison component 430 compares the input vector 408 to the set of intent vectors 406. Based on the comparison, the vector comparison component outputs an intent classification 412, which corresponds to the intent vector 406 with the highest similarity to the input vector 408.”);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Anderson with the teachings of Alexander in order to identify “an intent category of the set of intent categories corresponding to the intent vector having the highest similarity score with the conversation input vector” (Alexander, para 0055).
Regarding claim 2, Alexander discloses wherein each of the one or more linguistic patterns represents a respective concept of the user utterance (para 0050, 0067-0070).
Regarding claim 3, Anderson discloses wherein one or more linguistic syntactic rules are applied to identify the one or more linguistic patterns based on the user utterance (para 0036 – “using regular expressions (REGEX) which are special text strings for describing search patterns”).
Regarding claim 4, Alexander discloses wherein obtaining the respective semantic vectors associated with the one or more linguistic patterns comprises generating the semantic vectors in a concept vector space for each respective concept of the user utterance (para 0049).
Regarding claim 5, Alexander discloses wherein the concept indicators comprise one or more intents for each respective concept of the user utterance (para 0066, 0069).
Regarding claim 6, Alexander discloses wherein the concept model is a machine-learning (ML) concept model trained on sample utterances (para 0031).
Regarding claim 7, Alexander discloses wherein the respective semantic vectors associated with the one or more linguistic patterns are obtained based on a generically-trained word vector distribution model (para 0049 – “trained word embedding component 425”).
Regarding claim 8, Anderson discloses wherein the ensemble-scored artifacts are generated based at least in part on NLU indicators for the user utterance, wherein the NLU indicators comprise NLU-scored artifacts (para 0036, 0041, 0044).
Regarding claim 9, Alexander discloses wherein the ensemble-scored artifacts are generated based at least in part on lookup source indicators for the user utterance, wherein the lookup source indicators comprise one or more segmentations of the user utterance (para 0036 – “lookup tables with associated rules” for entity matching).
Regarding claims 10 and 16, see rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 11, Alexander discloses wherein the concept indicators comprise:
a concept represented within the concept model that matched an identified concept potentially associated with the user utterance (para 0043); and
a concept matching score that indicates a confidence of the match between the concept of the concept model and the identified concept potentially associated with the user utterance (para 0048 - similarity score).
Regarding claim 12, Alexander discloses comprising an NLU system that includes an intent-entity model, and wherein the concept indicators comprise:
one or more concept-related intents defined within the intent-entity model that are each related to the concept represented within the concept model (para 0033); and
one or more concept-intent relationship scores, including a respective concept-intent relationship score that corresponds to each of the one or more concept-related intents (para 0020, 0102 – distance score).
Regarding claims 13 and 18, see rejection of claim 2.
Regarding claims 14 and 19, see rejection of claim 6.
Regarding claim 15, see rejection of claim 9.
Regarding claim 17, Alexander discloses wherein, to generate the respective semantic vectors associated with one or more linguistic patterns of the user utterance, the instructions comprise instructions to:
extract one or more linguistic patterns of the user utterance (para 0043, 0049); and
generate the respective semantic vectors for each of the one or more linguistic patterns of the user utterance (see abstract; para 0043, 0049).
Regarding claim 20, see rejection of claim 8.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NAFIZ E HOQUE whose telephone number is (571)270-1811. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Ahmad Matar can be reached at (571)272-7488. 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.
/NAFIZ E HOQUE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2693
Prosecution Insights