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 .
This office action is sent in response to Applicant’s communication received on 02/04/2025 for the application number 19044701. The office hereby acknowledges receipt of the following placed of record in the file: Specification, Abstract, Oath/Declaration and claims.
Status of the claims
Claims 1-10 are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/28/2025 was filed before the mailing date of the first office action. These submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as explained below.
Claim 1 recites an information processing apparatus comprising at least one processor, the at least one processor carrying out:
an acquisition process for acquiring input information;
a derivation process for deriving at least one selected from the group consisting of a first response time, which is required for a first language model to generate first response information in a case where content indicated by the input information is input into the first language model and a second response time, which is required for a second language model to generate second response information in a case where the content indicated by the input information is input into the second language model
and a determination process for determining response content with respect to the input information with reference to the at least one selected from the group consisting of the first response time and the second response time which has been derived in the derivation process.
Step (a) comprises a mental process. This step can be performed by a human as a person
can receive or observe information to which a response is to be provided.
Step (b) comprises a mental process. This step can be performed by a human as a person can estimate or determine an amount of time expected to provide one or more responses to received information.
Step (c) comprises a mental process. This step can be performed in the human mind because a person can evaluate the response-time information and, based on that evaluation, determine content responsive to the received information.
Step 1: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim falls within any
statutory category. See MPEP 2106.03. The claim recites at least apparatus. Thus, the claim is a
machine, which is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES). Step 2A, Prong
One: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception.
As explained in MPEP 2106.04, subsection II, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the
judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim. As discussed above, the broadest
reasonable interpretation of steps (a)-(c) recites a mental process.
Specifically, step (a) can be performed by a human as a person can receive or observe information to which a response is to be provided.
Step (b) can be performed by a human as a person can estimate or determine an amount of time expected to provide one or more responses to received information.
Step (c) can be performed in the human mind because a person can evaluate the response-time information and, based on that evaluation, determine content responsive to the received information.
Hence the claim encompasses mental processes practically performed in the human mind
by observation, evaluation, judgement, and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III.
(Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Step 2A, Prong Two: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a
whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception or
whether the claim is “directed to” the judicial exception. This evaluation is performed by (1)
identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial
exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to
determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. See
MPEP 2106.04(d).
The claim recited additional elements including a processor, a first language model, and a second language model. However, these elements are recited at a high level of generality and perform generic computer functions, such as receiving data, processing data, generating content, and providing output. The use of these elements to acquire input information, derive response-time information, perform determinations and inferences, and generate response merely automates the mental processes described above using generic computer components. Such implementation does not impose any meaningful limit on the judicial exception. Accordingly, these elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO), and the claim is directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A: YES)
Step 2B: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole
amounts to significantly more than the recited exception i.e., whether any additional element, or
combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. As discussed with
respect to Step 2A, Prong Two, processor, a first language model, and a second language model comprise additional elements that perform well- understood, routine, and conventional activities in the field such as receiving data, processing data, generating content, and providing output. See MPEP 2106.05(g). As known in the art these elements are well understood, routine, and conventional functions of a computing device. Even when considered in combination these additional elements merely implement the abstract idea using generic computer components and perform insignificant extra - solutional activity, which does not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 2 recites a mental process as a human can determine an allowable amount of time for providing a response and determine response content based on the allowable time.
Claim 3 recites a mental process as a human can compare response times to one another and to an allowable time and select a preset action based on the comparison.
Claim 4 recites a mental process as a human can determine whether another person or human is speaking, and determine response content based on that determination.
Claim 5 recites a mental process as a human can determine whether another person or human should speak and determine response content based on that determination.
Claim 6 recites a mental process as a human can infer a feeling associated with another person and determine response content based on the inferred feeling.
Claim 7 recites a mental process as a human can infer context expected by another person and determine response content based on the inferred content.
Claim 8 recites a mental process as a human can infer whether a target includes a non-living body and the content of a response based on that determination.
Claims 9 & 10 recite substantially the same limitations as claim 1. Accordingly, they are directed to the same abstract idea.
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, 2, 3, 9, 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Jayatunga et al (US 20250259045 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Jayatunga teaches an information processing apparatus comprising at least one processor (Fig. 2 teaches the system as a whole), the at least one processor carrying out: an acquisition process for acquiring input information (Para 0071, “This text is forwarded to the first generative model 532 via generative model interface 520 and acts as an input prompt to the first generative model 532.”); a derivation process for deriving at least one selected from the group consisting of a first response time, which is required for a first language model to generate first response information in a case where content indicated by the input information is input into the first language model (Para 0089, “the computing system 514 measures a latency associated with receiving the first symbols from the first generative model.”), and a second response time, which is required for a second language model to generate second response information in a case where the content indicated by the input information is input into the second language model (Para 0106, “measuring the latency associated with receiving symbols from the second generative model 534 in response to that prompt.”); And a determination process for determining response content with respect to the input information with reference to the at least one selected from the group consisting of the first response time and the second response time which has been derived in the derivation process. (Para 0091, “responsive to the latency being within the particular range, the computing device 514 transmits a different second input prompt to second generative model 534.”).
Regarding claim 2, Jayatunga teaches in the derivation process, the at least one processor further derives an allowable time from the acquisition of the input information to output of response information with respect to the input information (Para 0090, “if the latency is measured by measuring how long it takes to receive all of the first symbols, it may be determined that the time it took to receive all of the first symbols exceeds a threshold.” Wherein the threshold comprises the allowable amount of time); And in the determination process, the at least one processor determines the response content with respect to the input information further with reference to the allowable time. (Para 0091, “responsive to the latency being within the particular range, the computing device 514 transmits a different second input prompt to second generative model 534.”).
Claim 9 & 10 are analogous to claim 1 in that they recite substantially the same limitations. They are therefore rejected for the same reasons.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jayatunga et al (US 20250259045 A1) as above in claims 1, 2, 9, 10 and further in view of Jin et al. (CN 116702907 A).
Regarding claim 3, Jayatunga teaches wherein the first response time is shorter than the second response time (Para 0106, “In some embodiments, a switch from the first generative model 532 to the second generative model 534 might only occur if the latency performance of the second generative model 534 is better than the first generative model 532.”, so in the case where the second generative model is not better, the first response time is shorter).
Jayatunga does not teach wherein in a case where the allowable time is shorter than the first response time, the at least one processor includes, in the response content, at least one of a plurality of preset actions in the determination process
However, Jin teaches wherein in a case where the allowable time is shorter than the first response time, the at least one processor includes, in the response content, at least one of a plurality of preset actions in the determination process (Pg. 20, when “the execution time length exceeds the degradation threshold value” the reasoning job is degraded to a lower priority queue; see also pg. 24, teaching that for the resulting “degraded reasoning job request” the job is paused and its “intermediate result (output character) generated in the execution process” is returned to the user terminal as an intermediate result. Thus, when execution exceeds a preset threshold, an intermediate response up to that point is generated and returned to the user).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Jayatunga so as to incorporate the teachings of Jin in order to reduced perceived delay and improve the user experience (Pg. 20).
Claims 4, 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jayatunga et al (US 20250259045 A1) as above in claims 1, 2, 9, 10 and further in view of Wooters et al. (US 11289085 B2).
Regarding claim 4, Jayatunga does not teach wherein the response content includes an utterance and in the determination process, the at least one processor carries out a first determination process for sequentially determining, with reference to the input information sequentially acquired from at least one target, whether the at least one target and/or the information processing apparatus is/are issuing an utterance, or whether neither the at least one target nor the information processing apparatus is issuing an utterance, and the at least one processor determines the response content with reference to a determination result obtained in the first determination process.
However, Wooters teaches wherein the response content includes an utterance (Col. 4, Ln. 52-57, “conversational computing interface 102 may include one or more audio speakers configured to output audio responses (e.g., utterances by the conversational computing interface in response to user utterances”); and in the determination process, the at least one processor carries out a first determination process for sequentially determining, with reference to the input information sequentially acquired from at least one target, whether the at least one target and/or the information processing apparatus is/are issuing an utterance (Col. 14, Ln. 41-46, “At 30, method 20 includes analyzing further audio data to assess whether further speech by the user occurs before the end-of-turn timer elapses”), or whether neither the at least one target nor the information processing apparatus is issuing an utterance (Col. 14, Ln. 56-58, “Responsive to detecting no more user speech in the audio data before the end-of-turn timer elapses”), and the at least one processor determines the response content with reference to a determination result obtained in the first determination process. (Col. 16, Ln. 30-43, “the conversational computing interface 102 is configured to recognize that the user is likely finished speaking” and “conversational computing interface 102 is configured to respond after a short silence”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Jayatunga so as to incorporate the teachings of Wooters in order to avoid interrupting a user and improve the naturalness of the conversational interface. (Col. 16).
Regarding claim 5, Jayatunga does not teach wherein in the determination process, the at least one processor carries out a second determination process for sequentially determining, with reference to the input information sequentially acquired from the at least one target, whether the at least one target should issue an utterance, or whether the information processing apparatus should issue an utterance, And the at least one processor determines the response content further with reference to a determination result obtained in the second determination process.
However, Wooters teaches wherein in the determination process, the at least one processor carries out a second determination process for sequentially determining, with reference to the input information sequentially acquired from the at least one target, whether the at least one target should issue an utterance (Col. 16, Ln. 11-13, “conversational computing interface 102 is configured to recognize that the user is not yet done with user turn” and Col. 16, Ln. 28-30, “conversational computing interface 102 is configured to recognize that user turn 108B includes further utterance 108B3.”), or whether the information processing apparatus should issue an utterance (Col. 17, Ln. 5-14, “conversational computing interface 102 may alternately be configured to begin computer turn 110B after a very short silence…thereby allowing conversational computing interface 102 to output a response 110B1 quickly after the user finishes speaking”), And the at least one processor determines the response content further with reference to a determination result obtained in the second determination process (Col. 19, Ln. 11-18, “the conversational computing interface may be configured to determine… whether the turn is fully actionable, and responsive to the turn not being fully actionable, generating a response utterance based on the last utterance).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Jayatunga so as to incorporate the teachings of Wooters in order to determine when the user should speak, improving conversational flow and responsiveness (Col. 19).
Claims 6, 7, 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jayatunga et al (US 20250259045 A1) as above in claims 1, 2, 9, 10 and further in view of Wang (US 20230245651 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Jayatunga does not teach wherein the at least one processor further carries out a first inference process for carrying out, with reference to the input information acquired from at least one target, inference of a feeling related to the at least one target; And in the determination process, the at least one processor determines the response content further with reference to an inference result obtained in the first inference process.
However, Wang teaches wherein the at least one processor further carries out a first inference process for carrying out, with reference to the input information acquired from at least one target, inference of a feeling related to the at least one target (Para 0447, “when the conversational AI agent interacts with the user, it can use NLP and the computer vision system to analyze the user’s facial expressions, body language, and tone of voice to detect their emotional state.”); And in the determination process, the at least one processor determines the response content further with reference to an inference result obtained in the first inference process (Para 0447, “The emotional state can be used to provide a more personalized and empathetic response to the user”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Jayatunga so as to incorporate the teachings of Wang in order to tailor generated responses and allow more poignant responses to the user (Para 0447).
Regarding claim 7, Jayatunga does not teach wherein the at least one processor further carries out a second inference process for carrying out, with reference to the input information acquired from at least one target, inference of content that is expected by the at least one target; and in the determination process, the at least one processor determines the response content further with reference to an inference result obtained in the second inference process.
However, Wang teaches wherein the at least one processor further carries out a second inference process for carrying out, with reference to the input information acquired from at least one target, inference of content that is expected by the at least one target (Para 0398, “the AI system uses the NLP engine to analyze the user’s input and predict the most relevant intent and objective”); and in the determination process, the at least one processor determines the response content further with reference to an inference result obtained in the second inference process (Para 0401, “The AI system then selects the intent and objective with the highest confidence score as the most relevant one and generates a response to the user.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Jayatunga so as to incorporate the teachings of Wang in order to more accurately address the content expected or desired by the user (Para 0401).
Regarding claim 8, Jayatunga does not teach wherein the at least one processor further carries out a third inference process for inferring, with reference to the input information acquired from at least one target whether or not the at least one target includes a non-living body; and in the determination process, the at least one processor determines the response content further with reference to an inference result obtained in the third inference process.
However, Wang teaches wherein the at least one processor further carries out a third inference process for inferring, with reference to the input information acquired from at least one target whether or not the at least one target includes a non-living body (Para 0345, “the AI system selects a candidate entity that is likely to possess conversational capability. In a healthcare setting, this could be a patient, doctor, nurse, or even a smart medical device with a chatbot or virtual assistant”, wherein a smart medical device with a chatbot comprises a conversational entity with a non-living body); and in the determination process, the at least one processor determines the response content further with reference to an inference result obtained in the third inference process (Para 0337, “Identifying an entity with conversational capability allows the AI system to tailor its responses and actions to accommodate the specific entity’s capabilities and limitations”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Jayatunga so as to incorporate the teachings of Wang in order to adapt the generated response according to the capabilities of the conversational target (Para 0337).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL ALAN FOSTER JR. whose telephone number is (571)272-8874. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 8:00am - 5:00pm, Alternate Fridays Off.
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, Hai Phan can be reached at (571) 272-6338. 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.
/MICHAEL A FOSTER JR/ Examiner, Art Unit 2654
/HAI PHAN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2654
Prosecution Insights