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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
Figures 4 – 6 contain text that is not legible, text and lines that are not sufficiently dense and dark, and reference characters placed upon shaded surfaces. All drawings must be made by a process which will give them satisfactory reproduction characteristics. Every line, number, and letter must be durable, clean, black (except for color drawings), sufficiently dense and dark, and uniformly thick and well-defined. Numbers, letters, and reference characters should not be placed upon hatched or shaded surfaces (see 37 CFR 1.84(l) and 37 CFR 1.84(p)).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
(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 – 3, 8 – 10 and 15 – 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kumar et al. (US Patent No. 12,249,332), hereinafter Kumar.
Regarding claim 1, Kumar discloses a computer-implemented method, comprising:
receiving, by a chatbot executing on a computing device from a user at a given point in time, information associated with an object (Column 2, lines 18-22, "A computing system may be configured to execute a command in response to user input, which may be in the form of a spoken utterance. For example, a user may speak “play some music.” In response, the system may output music."; Column 6, line 66 - Column 7, line 7, "A recognizer of the natural language component 260 may also include an intent classification (IC) component that processes text data to determine an intent(s), where the intent(s) corresponds to the action to be performed that is responsive to the user command represented in the text data. Each recognizer is associated with a database of words linked to intents. For example, a music intent database may link words and phrases such as “quiet,” “volume off,” and “mute” to a “mute” intent."; A computing system configured to execute a command in response to user input reads on a chatbot receiving information associated with an object, where in the example of a music intent, “music” read on an object and the phrases “quiet,” “volume off,” and “mute” read on information associated with the object.);
executing a plurality of models to analyze the information associated with the object (Column 3, lines 44-55, "As illustrated in FIG. 1A, the server(s) 120 receives (130) input data from a device (110a/110b). If the input data is the input audio data from the device 110a, the server(s) 120 performs (132) speech recognition processing (e.g., ASR) on the input audio data to generate input text data. The server(s) 120 performs (134) natural language processing (e.g., NLU) on input text data (either received from the device 110b or generated from the input audio data received from the device 110a) to determine a user command. A user command may correspond to a user request for the system to output content to the user."; Column 5, lines 21-29, "The speech recognition component 250 interprets the spoken utterance based on a similarity between the spoken utterance and pre-established language models. For example, the speech recognition component 250 may compare the audio data 111 with models for sounds (e.g., subword units or phonemes) and sequences of sounds to identify words that match the sequence of sounds spoken in the utterance of the audio data 111."; Column 6, line 66 - Column 7, line 3, "A recognizer of the natural language component 260 may also include an intent classification (IC) component that processes text data to determine an intent(s), where the intent(s) corresponds to the action to be performed that is responsive to the user command represented in the text data."; Automatic speech recognition processing, natural language understanding processing, language models, and an intent classification component read on a plurality of models to analyze the information associated with the object.);
predicting that the user requires additional information for the object based upon, at least in part, analyzing the information received by the user at the given point in time (Column 14, lines 5-32, "As described above, the server(s) 120 may execute an intent of the currently processed command and, only after receiving a user indication, execute an intent determined to be likely subsequently invoked by the user. The server(s) 120 may also or alternatively be configured to execute simultaneously, or near simultaneously, execute both the intent of the currently processed command and the intent likely to be subsequently invoked. For example, a user input a command to the system corresponding to “play Adele's latest album.” The server(s) 120 may determine the command corresponds to a <PlayMusic> intent as well as determine it is likely that the user will subsequently invoke a <ChangeVolume> intent. The server(s) 120 may execute both the <PlayMusic> intent and the <ChangeVolume> intent, resulting in a device of the system outputting, for example, “want me to increase the volume before playing Adele's latest album.” For further example, a user may input a command to the system corresponding to “book me a plane ticket from Boston to Seattle on July 5.” The server(s) 120 may determine the command corresponds to a <BookPlaneTicket> intent as well as determine it is likely that the user will subsequently invoke a <GetWeather> intent. The server(s) 120 may execute both the <BookPlaneTicket> intent and the <GetWeather> intent, resulting in a device of the system outputting, for example, “I booked you a plane ticket from Boston to Seattle for July 5, the weather in Seattle on July 5 is projected to be sunny with a high of 80 degrees.”"; Determining it is likely that a user will subsequently invoke an intent reads on predicting that the user requires additional information for the object. In the example of booking a plane ticket, “a plane ticket from Boston to Seattle” reads on the object, and determining it is likely that the user will subsequently invoke a weather intent for Seattle reads on predicting that the user requires additional information.);
and preemptively providing, by the chatbot, the additional information for the object to the user based upon, at least in part, predicting that the user requires the additional information for the object (Column 2, lines 31-34, "The present disclosure improves upon such systems by determining a potential future user input, and indicating such to a user or simply providing output from a predicted input to the user without the user having to speak the input."; Column 14, lines 5-32, "As described above, the server(s) 120 may execute an intent of the currently processed command and, only after receiving a user indication, execute an intent determined to be likely subsequently invoked by the user. The server(s) 120 may also or alternatively be configured to execute simultaneously, or near simultaneously, execute both the intent of the currently processed command and the intent likely to be subsequently invoked. For example, a user input a command to the system corresponding to “play Adele's latest album.” The server(s) 120 may determine the command corresponds to a <PlayMusic> intent as well as determine it is likely that the user will subsequently invoke a <ChangeVolume> intent. The server(s) 120 may execute both the <PlayMusic> intent and the <ChangeVolume> intent, resulting in a device of the system outputting, for example, “want me to increase the volume before playing Adele's latest album.” For further example, a user may input a command to the system corresponding to “book me a plane ticket from Boston to Seattle on July 5.” The server(s) 120 may determine the command corresponds to a <BookPlaneTicket> intent as well as determine it is likely that the user will subsequently invoke a <GetWeather> intent. The server(s) 120 may execute both the <BookPlaneTicket> intent and the <GetWeather> intent, resulting in a device of the system outputting, for example, “I booked you a plane ticket from Boston to Seattle for July 5, the weather in Seattle on July 5 is projected to be sunny with a high of 80 degrees.”"; Providing output from a predicted input to the user without the user having to speak the input reads on preemptively providing the additional information for the object. In the example of booking a plane ticket, outputting the projected weather for Seattle in response to the request to book a plane ticket from Boston to Seattle reads on preemptively providing additional information.).
Regarding claim 2, Kumar discloses the computer-implemented method as claimed in claim 1.
Kumar further discloses:
wherein a first model of the plurality of models executed to analyze the information associated with the object includes a natural language understanding (NLU) model for intent identification (Column 3, lines 49-55, "The server(s) 120 performs (134) natural language processing (e.g., NLU) on input text data (either received from the device 110b or generated from the input audio data received from the device 110a) to determine a user command. A user command may correspond to a user request for the system to output content to the user.").
Regarding claim 3, Kumar discloses the computer-implemented method as claimed in claim 2.
Kumar further discloses:
wherein a second model of the plurality of models executed to analyze the information associated with the object includes an Automated Speech Recognition (ASR) model to transcribe audio of at least a portion of the information that is analyzed by the NLU model (Column 3, lines 44-55, "As illustrated in FIG. 1A, the server(s) 120 receives (130) input data from a device (110a/110b). If the input data is the input audio data from the device 110a, the server(s) 120 performs (132) speech recognition processing (e.g., ASR) on the input audio data to generate input text data. The server(s) 120 performs (134) natural language processing (e.g., NLU) on input text data (either received from the device 110b or generated from the input audio data received from the device 110a) to determine a user command. A user command may correspond to a user request for the system to output content to the user.").
Regarding claim 8, arguments analogous to claim 1 are applicable. In addition,
Kumar discloses a computer program product residing on a computer readable storage medium having a plurality of instructions stored thereon which, when executed across one or more processors, causes at least a portion of the one or more processors to perform operations (Column 18, lines 42-44, "The components of the device(s) 110 and the server(s) 120 may include their own dedicated processors, memory, and/or storage."; Column 19, lines 41-44, "The computer readable storage medium may be readable by a computer and may comprise instructions for causing a computer or other device to perform processes described in the present disclosure.") comprising the steps of claim 1.
Regarding claim 9, arguments analogous to claim 2 are applicable.
Regarding claim 10, arguments analogous to claim 3 are applicable.
Regarding claim 15, arguments analogous to claim 1 are applicable. In addition,
Kumar discloses a computing system including one or more processors and one or more memories configured to perform operations (Column 18, lines 42-44, "The components of the device(s) 110 and the server(s) 120 may include their own dedicated processors, memory, and/or storage."; Column 19, lines 41-44, "The computer readable storage medium may be readable by a computer and may comprise instructions for causing a computer or other device to perform processes described in the present disclosure.") comprising the steps of claim 1.
Regarding claim 16, arguments analogous to claim 2 are applicable.
Regarding claim 17, arguments analogous to claim 3 are applicable.
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 4 – 5, 11 – 12 and 18 – 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar in view of Jain et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2025/0335740), hereinafter Jain.
Regarding claim 4, Kumar discloses the computer-implemented method as claimed in claim 1, but does not specifically disclose: wherein predicting that the user requires additional information for the object includes predicting that the user requires help navigating through a client application.
Jain teaches:
wherein predicting that the user requires additional information for the object includes predicting that the user requires help navigating through a client application (Paragraph 0015, lines 1-18, "Example aspects of the present disclosure are directed to techniques for automatically recommending (e.g., in real-time) context-specific navigation actions within a user interface of a software application. For example, a user using the software application to perform a specific task may be automatically recommended a navigation action that allows the user to perform the specific task in a more efficient manner compared to conventional software applications. In this manner, by automatically recommending context-specific navigation actions within the user interface, the disclosed techniques may minimize (or at least reduce) the occurrence of navigation errors. Furthermore, by minimizing the occurrence of navigation errors, inefficient utilization of computing resources resulting from such navigation errors may be minimized (or at least reduced). Still further, in some embodiments, navigation action recommendations may be in response to a navigation error and therefore may assist a user in resolving the navigation error."; Automatically recommending context-specific navigation actions within the user interface of a software application to minimize the occurrence of navigation errors reads on predicting that the user requires help navigating through a client application.).
Jain is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of computer user interfaces. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kumar to incorporate the teachings of Jain to automatically recommend context-specific navigation actions within the user interface of a software application. Doing so would allow for minimizing the occurrence of navigation errors and minimizing inefficient utilization of computing resources resulting from such navigation errors (Jain; Paragraph 0015, lines 1-18).
Regarding claim 5, Kumar in view of Jain discloses the computer-implemented method as claimed in claim 4.
Jain further teaches:
wherein preemptively providing, by the chatbot, the additional information for the object to the user includes providing step by step instructions how to navigate through the client application (Paragraph 0052, lines 10-17, " As an example, the natural language guidance 212 the generative language processing machine learning model 170 generates for the recommended navigation action 160 may include step-by-step instructions for how the user may traverse the particular navigation path within the user interface 122 that allows the user to perform the specific task in the most efficient manner (e.g., selecting the fewest number of user interface elements possible)."; Generating recommended navigation actions including step-by-step instructions for how the user may traverse the particular navigation path within the user interface reads on providing step by step instructions how to navigate through the client application.).
Jain is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of computer user interfaces. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kumar in view of Jain to further incorporate the teachings of Jain to generate recommended navigation actions including step-by-step instructions for how the user may traverse the particular navigation path within the user interface. Doing so would allow for minimizing the occurrence of navigation errors and minimizing inefficient utilization of computing resources resulting from such navigation errors (Jain; Paragraph 0015, lines 1-18).
Regarding claim 11, arguments analogous to claim 4 are applicable.
Regarding claim 12, arguments analogous to claim 5 are applicable.
Regarding claim 18, arguments analogous to claim 4 are applicable.
Regarding claim 19, arguments analogous to claim 5 are applicable.
Claims 6, 13 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar in view of Jain, and further in view of Judd et al. (US Patent No. 10,291,565), hereinafter Judd.
Regarding claim 6, Kumar in view of Jain discloses the computer-implemented method as claimed in claim 4, but does not specifically disclose: wherein preemptively providing, by the chatbot, the additional information for the object to the user includes providing a selectable link to the additional information, wherein the selectable link, when selected, navigates directly to the additional information through the client application.
Judd teaches:
wherein preemptively providing, by the chatbot, the additional information for the object to the user includes providing a selectable link to the additional information, wherein the selectable link, when selected, navigates directly to the additional information through the client application (Column 1, lines 29-45, "The present disclosure is generally directed to methods, apparatus, and computer-readable media (transitory and non-transitory) for incorporating “selectable application links”—graphical elements incorporated into a message exchange thread between a user and a personal assistant module to expose the user to an interface associated with another application—directly into a transcript of the message exchange thread that is rendered on a client computing device (or simply, “client device”) operated by the user. In various implementations, the selectable application links that are incorporated into a transcript may be dictated by resources of the client device that renders the transcript. For instance, one or more “candidate applications” that are somehow relevant to the content of the message exchange thread—and that are also installed on the client computing device operated by the user interacting with the personal assistant module—may be identified."; Providing selectable application links to candidate applications that are somehow relevant to the content of the message exchange thread reads on providing a selectable link to the additional information, wherein the selectable link, when selected, navigates directly to the additional information through the client application.).
Judd is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of conversational assistants. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kumar in view of Jain to incorporate the teachings of Judd to provide selectable application links to candidate applications that are somehow relevant to the content of the message exchange thread. Doing so would allow for providing outside information to a user pertinent to a conversation without switching to a different application such as a web browser to obtain the desired information (Judd; Column 1, lines 15-37).
Regarding claim 13, arguments analogous to claim 6 are applicable.
Regarding claim 20, arguments analogous to claim 6 are applicable.
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar in view of Agrawal et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0386049), hereinafter Agrawal.
Regarding claim 7, Kumar discloses the computer-implemented method as claimed in claim 1, but does not specifically disclose: wherein the additional information for the object includes a recommendation for another object.
Agrawal teaches:
wherein the additional information for the object includes a recommendation for another object (Paragraph 0042, lines 1-14, "In one example, a customer selects an item on a website hosted by the web server 104, e.g. by clicking on the item to view its product description details, by adding it to shopping cart, or by purchasing it. The customer may submit a reference query referring to the selected item, e.g. a query seeking an item similar to the selected item but with one or more different features. In response to receiving the request, the item recommendation computing device 102 may execute the one or more processors to determine some items that include these desired features and are the same as or very close to the selected item. The item recommendation computing device 102 may transmit some or all of the recommended items to the web server 104 to be displayed to the customer."; Determining recommended items and providing the recommendations to the customer reads on the additional information for the object including a recommendation for another object.).
Agrawal is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of conversational assistants. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kumar to incorporate the teachings of Agrawal to determine recommended items and provide the recommendations to the customer. Doing so would allow for providing a unique way for customers to discover desired products efficiently (Agrawal; Paragraph 0028, lines 1-5).
Regarding claim 14, arguments analogous to claim 7 are applicable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Subramanya et al. (US Patent No. 11,687,802) teaches a method for proactively predicting user intents on personal agents.
Nandi et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2026/0105254) teaches a chatbot that predicts the intent of the user.
Kamisetty et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0400235) teaches an assistant system that proactively provides recommendations..
Ahamed et al. ("Innovative Approaches in Predictive Analysis and Personalized Online Shopping Recommendations with AI Powered-Chat") teaches a method for performing predictive analysis to provide personalized shopping recommendations.
Fetahu et al. ("Identifying Shopping Intent in Product QA for Proactive Recommendations") teaches a method for identifying the shopping intent of a user and providing proactive recommendations.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to James Boggs whose telephone number is (571)272-2968. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, Daniel Washburn can be reached at (571)272-5551. 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.
/JAMES BOGGS/Examiner, Art Unit 2657
Prosecution Insights