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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on March 12, 2025, January 26, 2026, March 16, 2026, and July 7, 2026 are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 5 and 13 describe, in relevant part, “wherein the incident is one of an Environmental incident, a Health incident, a Safety incident, and a Quality incident”, which is interpreted as the incident including one of each of those types of incidents. The examiner recommends “wherein the incident is one of an Environmental incident, a Health incident, a Safety incident, or a Quality incident,” in order to indicate that the incident is only one of those types of incidents.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 7, 8, 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 7 and 15, the claims state ”iteratively generating at least one request”. The phrase is unclear because “iteratively” suggests repeated generation, while “at least one” includes only one request within its scope. It could be revised to : iteratively generating requests for additional information and receiving answers to the requests.
Regarding claim 8 and 16 , the claims state “a threshold amount of the required data”. This phrase is unclear because it does not explain what a threshold amount is. It is also unclear what determines whether the threshold has been reached.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim [1-20] rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to
mental process without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1, A method comprising: receiving, at a chat interface of a computer system, a natural language input from a user; executing, via at least one processor of the computer system, an Artificial Intelligence (Al) algorithm on the natural language input; identifying, via the at least one processor within the natural language input, a request for a desired action; identifying, via the at least one processor, required data for the desired action; retrieving, via the at least one processor, the required data, resulting in retrieved data; and generating, via the at least one processor, an Application Programming Interface (API) call to another computer program based on the desired action, the API call using the retrieved data.
[A person could receive a person’s written or spoken request, understand the action being requested, determine what information is needed, obtain the missing information from available records, and prepare or send an instruction to another person or system to carry out the action. ].
As described above, these limitations can be carried out as a series of mental steps.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the only additional element recited is a chat interface, AI algorithm, processor and API call, and these additional elements are nothing more than using a generic computer as a tool to implement the mental process.
This claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as described above, the only additional elements recited are chat interface, AI algorithm, processor and API, and these additional elements are nothing more than instructions to apply the mental process using general-purpose hardware.
Regarding claim 2, The method of claim 1, wherein the natural language input is received in a text format.
[A person could receive and read the user’s request in written or text form.]
As described above, these limitations can be carried out as a series of mental steps.
No additional elements are recited. Therefore, the claim does not describe a practical application or significantly more than the mental process.
Regarding claim 3, The method of claim 1, wherein the natural language input is received in a speech format.
[A person could listen to and understand the user’s spoken request.]
As described above, these limitations can be carried out as a series of mental steps.
No additional elements are recited. Therefore, the claim does not describe a practical application or significantly more than the mental process.
Regarding claim 4, The method of claim 1, wherein the desired action is a reporting of an incident.
[A person could determine that the user wants to report an incident and initiate an incident report].
As described above, these limitations can be carried out as a series of mental steps.
No additional elements are recited. Therefore, the claim does not describe a practical application or significantly more than the mental process.
Regarding claim 5, The method of claim 4, wherein the incident is one of an Environmental incident, a Health incident, a Safety incident, and a Quality incident.
[A person could classify the reported incident as an environment, health, safety, or quality incident.]
As described above, these limitations can be carried out as a series of mental steps.
No additional elements are recited. Therefore, the claim does not describe a practical application or significantly more than the mental process.
Regarding claim 6, The method of claim 1, further comprising, prior to the identifying of the required data: receiving, at the computer system, an authorization level of the user; and verifying, via the at least one processor, that the desired action is authorized by the authorization level of the user.
[A person could review the user’s authorization level and determine whether the user is permitted to perform the requested action].
As described above, these limitations can be carried out as a series of mental steps.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the only additional elements recited are a computer system and a processor and these additional elements are nothing more than generic computer implementing the mental process using general-purpose software and general-purpose hardware.
This claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as described above, the only additional elements recited are a computer system and a processor and these additional elements are nothing more than instructions to apply the mental process using general-purpose software and hardware.
Regarding claim 7, The method of claim 1, wherein the retrieving of the required data comprises: iteratively generating, via the at least one processor, at least one request to the user for additional information; and receiving, at the computer system from the user, answers to the at least one request.
[A person could determine that additional information is missing, repeatedly ask the user follow-up questions, and receive the user’s answers until the necessary information is obtained].
As described above, these limitations can be carried out as a series of mental steps.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the only additional elements recited are a computer system and a processor and these additional elements are nothing more than generic computer implementing the mental process using general-purpose software and general-purpose hardware.
This claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as described above, the only additional elements recited are a computer system and a processor and these additional elements are nothing more than instructions to apply the mental process using general-purpose software and hardware.
Regarding claim 8, The method of claim 1, wherein the retrieving of the required data comprises: transmitting a query for a portion of the required data to a database; and receiving the portion of the required data from the database in response to the query, until a threshold amount of the required data is retrieved.
[A person could search available records for portions of the required information, review the information obtained, and continue searching until a sufficient or threshold amount of the required information has been collected. ]
As described above, these limitations can be carried out as a series of mental steps.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the only additional element recited is a database and this additional element is nothing more than generic computer implementing the mental process using general-purpose software and general-purpose hardware.
This claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as described above, the only additional element recited is a database and this additional element is nothing more than instructions to apply the mental process using general-purpose software and hardware.
Regarding claim 9 , A system comprising: at least one processor; and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having instructions stored which, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform operations comprising: receiving, at a chat interface, a natural language input from a user; executing an Artificial Intelligence (AI) algorithm on the natural language input; identifying within the natural language input a request for a desired action; identifying required data for the desired action; retrieving the required data, resulting in retrieved data; and generating, via the at least one processor, an Application Programming Interface (API) call to another computer program based on the desired action, the API call using the retrieved data.
[A person could receive a person’s written or spoken request, understand the action being requested, determine what information is needed, obtain the missing information from available records, and prepare or send an instruction to another person or system to carry out the action. ].
As described above, these limitations can be carried out as a series of mental steps.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the only additional element recited is a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, processor, chat interface, AI algorithm, and API call, and these additional elements are nothing more than using a generic computer as a tool to implement the mental process.
This claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as described above, the only additional elements recited are non-transitory computer-readable storage medium , processor, chat interface, AI algorithm, and API call, and these additional elements are nothing more than instructions to apply the mental process using general-purpose hardware.
Regarding claim 10, The system of claim 9, wherein the natural language input is received in a text format.
[A person could receive and read the user’s request in written or text form.]
As described above, these limitations can be carried out as a series of mental steps.
No additional elements are recited. Therefore, the claim does not describe a practical application or significantly more than the mental process.
Regarding claim 11, The system of claim 9, wherein the natural language input is received in a speech format.
[A person could listen to and understand the user’s spoken request.]
As described above, these limitations can be carried out as a series of mental steps.
No additional elements are recited. Therefore, the claim does not describe a practical application or significantly more than the mental process.
Regarding claim 12, The system of claim 9, wherein the desired action is a reporting of an incident.
[A person could determine that the user wants to report an incident and initiate an incident report].
As described above, these limitations can be carried out as a series of mental steps.
No additional elements are recited. Therefore, the claim does not describe a practical application or significantly more than the mental process.
Regarding claim 13, The system of claim 12, wherein the incident is one of an Environmental incident, a Health incident, a Safety incident, and a Quality incident.
[A person could classify the reported incident as an environment, health, safety, or quality incident.]
As described above, these limitations can be carried out as a series of mental steps.
No additional elements are recited. Therefore, the claim does not describe a practical application or significantly more than the mental process.
Regarding claim 14, The system of claim 9, the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having additional instructions stored which, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform operations comprising, prior to the identifying of the required data: receiving authorization level of the user; and verifying that the desired action is authorized by the authorization level of the user.
[A person could review the user’s authorization level and determine whether the user is permitted to perform the requested action].
As described above, these limitations can be carried out as a series of mental steps.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the only additional elements recited are a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium and a processor and these additional elements are nothing more than generic computer implementing the mental process using general-purpose software and general-purpose hardware.
This claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as described above, the only additional elements recited are a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium and a processor and these additional elements are nothing more than instructions to apply the mental process using general-purpose software and hardware.
Regarding claim 15, The system of claim 9, wherein the retrieving of the required data comprises: iteratively generating, via the at least one processor, at least one request to the user for additional information; and receiving, from the user, answers to the at least one request.
[A person could determine that additional information is missing, repeatedly ask the user follow-up questions, and receive the user’s answers until the necessary information is obtained].
As described above, these limitations can be carried out as a series of mental steps.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the only additional elements recited are a computer system and a processor and these additional elements are nothing more than generic computer implementing the mental process using general-purpose software and general-purpose hardware.
This claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as described above, the only additional elements recited are a computer system and a processor and these additional elements are nothing more than instructions to apply the mental process using general-purpose software and hardware.
Regarding claim 16, The system of claim 9, wherein the retrieving of the required data comprises: transmitting a query for a portion of the required data to a database; and receiving the portion of the required data from the database in response to the query, until a threshold amount of the required data is retrieved.
[A person could search available records for portions of the required information, review the information obtained, and continue searching until a sufficient or threshold amount of the required information has been collected. ]
As described above, these limitations can be carried out as a series of mental steps.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the only additional element recited is a database and this additional element is nothing more than generic computer implementing the mental process using general-purpose software and general-purpose hardware.
This claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as described above, the only additional element recited is a database and this additional element is nothing more than instructions to apply the mental process using general-purpose software and hardware.
Regarding claim 17 , a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having instructions stored which, when executed by at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform operations comprising :receiving, at a chat interface, a natural language input from a user; executing an Artificial Intelligence (AI) algorithm on the natural language input; identifying within the natural language input a request for a desired action; identifying required data for the desired action; retrieving the required data, resulting in retrieved data; and generating, via the at least one processor, an Application Programming Interface (API) call to another computer program based on the desired action, the API call using the retrieved data.
[A person could receive a person’s written or spoken request, understand the action being requested, determine what information is needed, obtain the missing information from available records, and prepare or send an instruction to another person or system to carry out the action. ].
As described above, these limitations can be carried out as a series of mental steps.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the only additional element recited is a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, processor, chat interface, AI algorithm, and API call, and these additional elements are nothing more than using a generic computer as a tool to implement the mental process.
This claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as described above, the only additional elements recited are non-transitory computer-readable storage medium , processor, chat interface, AI algorithm, and API call, and these additional elements are nothing more than instructions to apply the mental process using general-purpose hardware.
Regarding claim 18, the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 17, wherein the natural language input is received in a text format.
[A person could receive and read the user’s request in written or text form.]
As described above, these limitations can be carried out as a series of mental steps.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the only additional element recited is a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium and this additional element is nothing more than using a generic computer as a tool to implement the mental process.
This claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as described above, the only additional element recited is a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium and this additional element is nothing more than instructions to apply the mental process using general-purpose hardware.
Regarding claim 19, The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 17, wherein the natural language input is received in a speech format.
[A person could listen to and understand the user’s spoken request.]
As described above, these limitations can be carried out as a series of mental steps.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the only additional element recited is a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium and this additional element is nothing more than using a generic computer as a tool to implement the mental process.
This claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as described above, the only additional element recited is a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium and this additional element is nothing more than instructions to apply the mental process using general-purpose hardware.
Regarding claim 20, The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 17, wherein the desired action is a reporting of an incident.
[A person could determine that the user wants to report an incident and initiate an incident report].
As described above, these limitations can be carried out as a series of mental steps.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the only additional element recited is a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium and this additional element is nothing more than using a generic computer as a tool to implement the mental process.
This claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as described above, the only additional element recited is a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium and this additional element is nothing more than instructions to apply the mental process using general-purpose hardware.
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, 2, 3, 7, 9, 10, 11, 15, 17, 18, 19 ] are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 a(1) as being unpatentable over Pasupalak (US 9971766 B2, hereinafter Pasupalak).
Regarding claim 1, Pasupalak teaches
A method comprising:
receiving, at a chat interface of a computer system, a natural language input from a user;
[Column 11, lines 30-37 "A user interacts with App 101 on their smartphone 102 to perform commands and/or to engage in a conversational dialogue with their smartphone 102. App 101 is a component of the Conversational Agent 150 and provides a user interface 105 for allowing the user to interface with the functionality provided by Conversational Agent 150. A user query 302 is a text representation of a voiced ( or typed) user query provided by the user." where App 101 and user interface 105 map to the chat interface];
executing, via at least one processor of the computer system, an Artificial Intelligence (Al) algorithm on the natural language input;
[Column 11, lines 46-53 " In one embodiment, NLP Engine 114 receives a user query 302 as described below and derives the intention of the user. NLP Engine 114 may identify a domain, a subgroup (also referred to as a subdomain), one or more tasks (also referred to as actions and/or commands) according to the derived intention of the user, and one or more entities (also referred to as parameters) that may be useful to accomplish the one or more tasks."];
[Column 19, lines 34-37 "The Conversational Agent 150 may employ one or more aggregation modules for combining classifiers 602, 604, 35 606, and 608 and for providing generating a result therefrom.
In one embodiment, a two-layer neural network 601 is used.."];
identifying, via the at least one processor within the natural language input, a request for a
desired action;
[Column 11, lines 46-65 "In one embodiment, NLP Engine 114 receives a user query 302 as described below and derives the intention of the user. NLP Engine 114 may identify a domain, a subgroup (also referred to as a subdomain), one or more tasks (also referred to as actions and/or commands) according to the derived intention of the user, and one or more entities (also referred to as parameters) that may be useful to accomplish the one or more tasks. As an example, interaction, a user expresses the query 302 "Find me a flight from Toronto to New York leaving in a week". The above query 302 may be 55 classified by NLP Engine 114 as relating to the domain TRAVEL, the subgroup of flights. NLP Engine 114 may further relate the user query 302 to tasks to be performed such as "find flights" and maybe "book flights", and may further identify the entities "Toronto", "New York", as well as the departure date. The process of identifying the domain, subgroup, one or more task, and entities associated with a user query 302 is generally referred to herein as deriving the user intent. NLP Engine 114 may create a representation of.."];
identifying, via the at least one processor, required data for the desired action;
[Column 16, lines 30-39 "FIG. 5 illustrates a flow chart of a method 500 of keyword identification such as may be useful for processing a user query 302 to determine the set of keywords related to the command and/or entities in the query. A database 312 of queries and associated categories and commands may be defined and made available for keyword expansion. For example, in the context of a smartphone 302, a subset of categories may represent functions/commands such as “email”, “telephone”, “book meeting”, “set alarm”, “short message service (SMS)/text” amongst others. "];
retrieving, via the at least one processor, the required data, resulting in retrieved data; and
[Column 22, lines 1-14 "In an embodiment, Services Manager 130 performs a requested command ( or groups of commands) based on a filled or partially filled template 319 provided by NLP Engine 114. In one embodiment, template 319 is filled with entity information by the NLP Engine 114 as described above with respect to named entity recognition and entity extraction, which then passes template 319 to the Services Manager 130. The derived user intent may be combined with some or all of the rich information described herein to further complete template 319. Services Manager 130 in one embodiment evaluates the content of template 319 to determine if the command requested (according to derived user intent) can be performed" where entity required to complete template corresponds to the required data for identified action];
generating, via the at least one processor, an Application Programming Interface (API) call to
another computer program based on the desired action, the API call using the retrieved data.
[Column 10, lines 10-19 "Interfaces 118 are interfaces to particular web-based services( e.g. Web Services) or other external services. External services typically utilize well-defined interfaces (e.g. application programming interfaces-APis) for receiving requests and returning responses.
Cloud-based service infrastructure 104 provides a manner for receiving natural language commands for such services, determining the applicable
external service request based on the derived user intent and any associated data (parameters) to make the request and invoking the request."];
[Column 10, lines 25-30 "Internal and external services such as via interfaces 118, 120 may be invoked in any one of several ways. Any service call mechanism can be used. Examples include REST, SOAP, COBRA and the like. Non-service call, passive mechanisms can also be used. In this case, data is placed at
a digital location that is accessible by the invoked service.."];
Regarding claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated.
Pasupalak teaches
The method of claim 1, wherein the natural language input is received in a text format.
[Column 11, lines 35-36 "A user query 302 is a text representation of a voiced ( or typed) user query provided by the user."];
Regarding claim 3, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated.
Pasupalak teaches
The method of claim 1, wherein the natural language input is received in a speech format.
[Column 5, lines 8-12 "In the present example embodiment, cloud based service infrastructure 104 is configured to permit a user of smartphone 102 to provide speech inputs defining commands to obtain a desired user experience that may include the provision of one or more services."].
Regarding claim 7, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated.
Pasupalak teaches
The method of claim 1, wherein the retrieving of the required data comprises:
iteratively generating, via the at least one processor, at least one request to the user for additional information; and
[Column 2, lines 43-49 "The dialogue manager may be configured to identify at least one unfilled
entity relating to said at least one command and generate at least one dialogue response comprising a prompt to present to a user to obtain the at least one unfilled entity. A respective prompt may be generated for each of the at least one unfilled entity"];
[Column 13, lines 27-43 "A clarification type query is in relation to a current command and is responsive to one or more clarification questions posed by the Conversational Agent 150 to elicit more information (such as entities and/or parameters) or to determine which domain the user is referring to with a specific query. Clarification type queries may occur when the Dialogue Manager 116 asks the user a clarification style question. For example, for the user query 302 “Tell Bob I want to book a meeting”, Conversational Agent 150 may formulate an output 304 comprising a clarification questions from Dialogue Manager 116 such as “Did you want to text or email Bob”. These clarification questions are formulated to elicit more information regarding the communication method the user wishes to employ to communicate the message to Bob. In the above example, a user query such as “Text him” in response to the clarification question would be classified as a clarification query 302."];
receiving, at the computer system from the user, answers to the at least one request.
[Column 13, lines 44-58 "In response to some queries the Conversational Agent 150 may formulate a clarification question to determine which domain the user is referring to. For example, for the user query “Get me tickets to Rome”, the Conversational Agent 150 may recognize that Rome is a city, there are several restaurants with the word “Rome” in the name, and that Rome is also the name of a movie. Conversational Agent 150 may formulate and present as output 304 a clarification question such as: “Did you want a flight to Rome, tickets to the movie Rome, reservations for a restaurant, or something else?.” The Conversational Agent 150 may learn over time that the user prefers a certain mapping for queries with the word “Rome” and may take corresponding action (i.e.—perform a command) based on the user behavior and/or user preferences"];
[Column 40, lines 5-11 "At step 4410, a clarification question is presented to the user which may include an ordered list of possible responses. At
step 4420, the user input is received which may be in the form of a selection from the ordered list and/or a voice input from the user."].
Regarding claim 9,
Pasupalak teaches
A system comprising:
at least one processor; and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having
instructions stored which, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform operations comprising:
[Column 47, lines 54- 57 “A computing device comprising one or more processors and one or more non-transitory storage devices storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors,
configure the computing device to”];
receiving, at a chat interface, a natural language input from a user;
[Column 11, lines 30-37 "A user interacts with App 101 on their smartphone 102 to perform commands and/or to engage in a conversational dialogue with their smartphone 102. App 101 is a component of the Conversational Agent 150 and provides a user interface 105 for allowing the user to interface with the functionality provided by Conversational Agent 150. A user query 302 is a text representation of a voiced ( or typed) user query provided by the user." where App 101 and user interface 105 map to the chat interface];
executing, an Artificial Intelligence (Al) algorithm on the natural language input;
[Column 11, lines 46-53 " In one embodiment, NLP Engine 114 receives a user query 302 as described below and derives the intention of the user. NLP Engine 114 may identify a domain, a subgroup (also referred to as a subdomain), one or more tasks (also referred to as actions and/or commands) according to the derived intention of the user, and one or more entities (also referred to as parameters) that may be useful to accomplish the one or more tasks."];
[Column 19, lines 34-37 "The Conversational Agent 150 may employ one or more aggregation modules for combining classifiers 602, 604, 35 606, and 608 and for providing generating a result therefrom.
In one embodiment, a two-layer neural network 601 is used.."];
identifying, within the natural language input, a request for a desired action;
[Column 11, lines 46-65 "In one embodiment, NLP Engine 114 receives a user query 302 as described below and derives the intention of the user. NLP Engine 114 may identify a domain, a subgroup (also referred to as a subdomain), one or more tasks (also referred to as actions and/or commands) according to the derived intention of the user, and one or more entities (also referred to as parameters) that may be useful to accomplish the one or more tasks. As an example, interaction, a user expresses the query 302 "Find me a flight from Toronto to New York leaving in a week". The above query 302 may be 55 classified by NLP Engine 114 as relating to the domain TRAVEL, the subgroup of flights. NLP Engine 114 may further relate the user query 302 to tasks to be performed such as "find flights" and maybe "book flights", and may further identify the entities "Toronto", "New York", as well as the departure date. The process of identifying the domain, subgroup, one or more task, and entities associated with a user query 302 is generally referred to herein as deriving the user intent. NLP Engine 114 may create a representation of.."];
Identifying required data for the desired action;
[Column 16, lines 30-39 "FIG. 5 illustrates a flow chart of a method 500 of keyword identification such as may be useful for processing a user query 302 to determine the set of keywords related to the command and/or entities in the query. A database 312 of queries and associated categories and commands may be defined and made available for keyword expansion. For example, in the context of a smartphone 302, a subset of categories may represent functions/commands such as “email”, “telephone”, “book meeting”, “set alarm”, “short message service (SMS)/text” amongst others. "];
retrieving, the required data, resulting in retrieved data; and
[Column 22, lines 1-14 "In an embodiment, Services Manager 130 performs a requested command ( or groups of commands) based on a filled or partially filled template 319 provided by NLP Engine 114. In one embodiment, template 319 is filled with entity information by the NLP Engine 114 as described above with respect to named entity recognition and entity extraction, which then passes template 319 to the Services Manager 130. The derived user intent may be combined with some or all of the rich information described herein to further complete template 319. Services Manager 130 in one embodiment evaluates the content of template 319 to determine if the command requested (according to derived user intent) can be performed" where entity required to complete template corresponds to the required data for identified action];
generating, via the at least one processor, an Application Programming Interface (API) call to
another computer program based on the desired action, the API call using the retrieved data.
[Column 10, lines 10-19 "Interfaces 118 are interfaces to particular web-based services( e.g. Web Services) or other external services. External services typically utilize well-defined interfaces (e.g. application programming interfaces-APis) for receiving requests and returning responses.
Cloud-based service infrastructure104 provides a manner for receiving natural language commands for such services, determining the applicable
external service request based on the derived user intent and any associated data (parameters) to make the request and invoking the request."];
[Column 10, lines 25-30 "Internal and external services such as via interfaces 118, 120 may be invoked in any one of several ways. Any service call mechanism can be used. Examples include REST, SOAP, COBRA and the like. Non-service call, passive mechanisms can also be used. In this case, data is placed at
a digital location that is accessible by the invoked service.."];
Regarding claim 10, the rejection of claim 9 is incorporated.
Pasupalak teaches
The system of claim 9, wherein the natural language input is received in a text format.
Claim 10 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 2.
Regarding claim 11, the rejection of claim 9 is incorporated.
Pasupalak teaches
The system of claim 9, wherein the natural language input is received in a speech format.
Claim 11 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 3.
Regarding claim 15, the rejection of claim 9 is incorporated.
Pasupalak teaches
The system of claim 9, wherein the retrieving of the required data comprises: iteratively generating, via the at least one processor, at least one request to the user for additional information; and receiving, from the user, answers to the at least one request.
Claim 15 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 7.
Regarding claim 17,
Pasupalak teaches
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having instructions stored which, when
executed by at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform operations comprising:
[Column 47, lines 54- 57 “A computing device comprising one or more processors and one or more non-transitory storage devices storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors,
configure the computing device to”];
receiving, at a chat interface, a natural language input from a user;
[Column 11, lines 30-37 "A user interacts with App 101 on their smartphone 102 to perform commands and/or to engage in a conversational dialogue with their smartphone 102. App 101 is a component of the Conversational Agent 150 and provides a user interface 105 for allowing the user to interface with the functionality provided by Conversational Agent 150. A user query 302 is a text representation of a voiced ( or typed) user query provided by the user." where App 101 and user interface 105 map to the chat interface];
executing an Artificial Intelligence (Al) algorithm on the natural language input;
[Column 11, lines 46-53 " In one embodiment, NLP Engine 114 receives a user query 302 as described below and derives the intention of the user. NLP Engine 114 may identify a domain, a subgroup (also referred to as a subdomain), one or more tasks (also referred to as actions and/or commands) according to the derived intention of the user, and one or more entities (also referred to as parameters) that may be useful to accomplish the one or more tasks."];
[Column 19, lines 34-37 "The Conversational Agent 150 may employ one or more aggregation modules for combining classifiers 602, 604, 35 606, and 608 and for providing generating a result therefrom.
In one embodiment, a two-layer neural network 601 is used.."];
identifying, within the natural language input, a request for a desired action;
[Column 11, lines 46-65 "In one embodiment, NLP Engine 114 receives a user query 302 as described below and derives the intention of the user. NLP Engine 114 may identify a domain, a subgroup (also referred to as a subdomain), one or more tasks (also referred to as actions and/or commands) according to the derived intention of the user, and one or more entities (also referred to as parameters) that may be useful to accomplish the one or more tasks. As an example, interaction, a user expresses the query 302 "Find me a flight from Toronto to New York leaving in a week". The above query 302 may be 55 classified by NLP Engine 114 as relating to the domain TRAVEL, the subgroup of flights. NLP Engine 114 may further relate the user query 302 to tasks to be performed such as "find flights" and maybe "book flights", and may further identify the entities "Toronto", "New York", as well as the departure date. The process of identifying the domain, subgroup, one or more task, and entities associated with a user query 302 is generally referred to herein as deriving the user intent. NLP Engine 114 may create a representation of.."];
Identifying required data for the desired action;
[Column 16, lines 30-39 "FIG. 5 illustrates a flow chart of a method 500 of keyword identification such as may be useful for processing a user query 302 to determine the set of keywords related to the command and/or entities in the query. A database 312 of queries and associated categories and commands may be defined and made available for keyword expansion. For example, in the context of a smartphone 302, a subset of categories may represent functions/commands such as “email”, “telephone”, “book meeting”, “set alarm”, “short message service (SMS)/text” amongst others. "];
retrieving, the required data, resulting in retrieved data; and
[Column 22, lines 1-14 "In an embodiment, Services Manager 130 performs a requested command ( or groups of commands) based on a filled or partially filled template 319 provided by NLP Engine 114. In one embodiment, template 319 is filled with entity information by the NLP Engine 114 as described above with respect to named entity recognition and entity extraction, which then passes template 319 to the Services Manager 130. The derived user intent may be combined with some or all of the rich information described herein to further complete template 319. Services Manager 130 in one embodiment evaluates the content of template 319 to determine if the command requested (according to derived user intent) can be performed" where entity required to complete template corresponds to the required data for identified action];
generating, via the at least one processor, an Application Programming Interface (API) call to
another computer program based on the desired action, the API call using the retrieved data.
[Column 10, lines 10-19 "Interfaces 118 are interfaces to particular web-based services( e.g. Web Services) or other external services. External services typically utilize well-defined interfaces (e.g. application programming interfaces-APis) for receiving requests and returning responses.
Cloud-based service infrastructure104 provides a manner for receiving natural language commands for such services, determining the applicable
external service request based on the derived user intent and any associated data (parameters) to make the request and invoking the request."];
[Column 10, lines 25-30 "Internal and external services such as via interfaces 118, 120 may be invoked in any one of several ways. Any service call mechanism can be used. Examples include REST, SOAP, COBRA and the like. Non-service call, passive mechanisms can also be used. In this case, data is placed at
a digital location that is accessible by the invoked service.."];
Regarding claim 18, the rejection of claim 17 is incorporated.
Pasupalak teaches
The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 17, wherein the natural language input is received in a text format.
Claim 18 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 2.
Regarding claim 19, the rejection of claim 17 is incorporated.
Pasupalak teaches
The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 17, wherein the natural language input is received in a speech format.
Claim 19 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 3.
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 [ 4, 5, 6, 12, 13, 14, 20 ] are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pasupalak (US 9971766 B2, hereinafter Pasupalak ) in view of deCharms (US 9014661 B2, hereinafter deCharms).
Regarding claim 4, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated.
Pasupalak does not teach
The method of claim 1, wherein the desired action is a reporting of an incident.
However, deCharms teaches
The method of claim 1, wherein the desired action is a reporting of an incident.
[Column 49, lines 13-22 "The “Incident Reporting” feature 1402 allows a user to report an unsafe location, crime, accident, or other emergency through the system. Incidents are reported to the appropriate authorities and other users are alerted of the incident to provide notice so as to keep them safe. The “Message All Friends” feature allows for a text message, an audio call request, or a video call request to be sent to all of a user's friends simultaneously, with the first of your friends answering the message/request being available to the user."].
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the Pasupalak with deCharms to permit users to conveniently initiate reports through typed or spoken natural language requests, thereby improving the accessibility and efficiency of incident reporting.
Regarding claim 5, the rejection of claim 4 is incorporated.
Pasupalak does not teach
The method of claim 4, wherein the incident is one of an Environmental incident, a Health incident, a Safety incident, and a Quality incident.
However, deCharms teaches
The method of claim 4, wherein the incident is one of an Environmental incident, a Health incident, a Safety incident, and a Quality incident.
[Column 49, 16-22 " Incidents are reported to the appropriate authorities and other users are alerted of the incident to provide notice so as to keep them safe. The “Message All Friends” feature allows for a text message, an audio call request, or a video call request to be sent to all of a user's friends simultaneously, with the first of your friends answering the message/request being available to the user"].
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the Pasupalak with deCharms so that the conversation agent could recognize and process safety related requests and transmit the relevant incident information to appropriate authorities or other users, thereby providing faster and more convenient access to safety reporting services.
Regarding claim 6, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated.
Pasupalak does not teach
The method of claim 1, further comprising, prior to the identifying of the required data: receiving, at the computer system, an authorization level of the user; and verifying, via the at least one processor, that the desired action is authorized by the authorization level of the user.
However, deCharms teaches
The method of claim 1, further comprising, prior to the identifying of the required data: receiving, at the computer system, an authorization level of the user;
[Column 5, lines 20-23 "a central computer system can be a professional emergency response system (BR); gating access to one or more security features based on
subscription levels for users (BS);" where user's subscription levels map to the authorization levels];
and verifying, via the at least one processor, that the desired action is authorized by the authorization level of the user.
[Column 23, lines "21-27 "Before providing such remote access and control to information and components of the mobile computing device 202, such as control over the input and output
subsystems 216, 218, the remote control client 242c can determine whether the requesting device and/or associated user have been given permission to have such access and
control by checking against a set of permissions 242d"];
[Column 36, lines 19-26 "The user device 402 can receive the instructions and additional information (525) and can check permissions to determine whether to perform the operations instructed by the responder device 404 (526). The permissions may be predefined and/or rule based, and may be explicitly identified (e.g., preapproved list of responders with permission) or implicit (e.g., any responder that was contacted by the user device 402 can be provided with implicit permission)"];
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the Pasupalak with deCharms because Pasupalak’s conversational agent teaches identifying a user requested action and invokes a service to perform that action, while deCharms teaches controlling access to security features according to user subscription levels and checking user permissions before performing a requested operation. This prevent users from initiating actions or accessing services for which they lack permission, thereby improving system security and preventing unauthorized operations.
Regarding claim 12, the rejection of claim 9 is incorporated.
Pasupalak in view of deCharms does teach
The system of claim 9, wherein the desired action is a reporting of an incident.
Claim 12 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 4.
Regarding claim 13, the rejection of claim 12 is incorporated.
Pasupalak in view of deCharms does teach
The system of claim 12, wherein the incident is one of an Environmental incident, a Health incident, a Safety incident, and a Quality incident.
Claim 13 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 5.
Regarding claim 14, the rejection of claim 9 is incorporated.
Pasupalak in view of deCharms does teach
The system of claim 9, the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having additional instructions stored which, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform operations comprising, prior to the identifying of the required data: receiving authorization level of the user; and verifying that the desired action is authorized by the authorization level of the user.
Claim 14 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 6.
Regarding claim 20, the rejection of claim 17 is incorporated.
Pasupalak in view of deCharms does teach
The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 17, wherein the desired action is a reporting of an incident.
Claim 20 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 4.
Claim [ 8, 16 ] are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pasupalak (US 9971766 B2, hereinafter Pasupalak ) in view of Li (US 12118007 B2, hereinafter Li).
Regarding claim 8, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated.
Pasupalak does not teach
The method of claim 1, wherein the retrieving of the required data comprises: transmitting a
query for a portion of the required data to a database; and receiving the portion of the required data from the database in response to the query, until a threshold amount of the required data is retrieved.
However, Li teaches
The method of claim 1, wherein the retrieving of the required data comprises:
transmitting a query for a portion of the required data to a database; and
[Column 7, lines 31-37 "The term “per-source portion” refers to a data object generated by a query processing engine in order to use in retrieving data in response to a data retrieval query, where the per-source portion defines a portion of the intended results of the data retrieval query that is configured to be retrieved from a particular data source by the query processing engine"];
[Column 18, lines 56-60 "Returning to FIG. 5, the process 500 continues at operation 504 when the data retrieval computing device 111 transmits a respective data retrieval request for the respective per-source portion for each data source of the plurality of data sources to the corresponding data source."]
[Column 1, lines 22-26 "For example, certain embodiments of the present invention provide methods, apparatuses, systems, computing devices, and/or the like that are configured to enable database retrieval in distributed database systems using at least one of query definition models,.."];
receiving the portion of the required data from the database in response to the query,
[Column 18, lines 60-67. Column 19 , lines 1-11 "At operation 505, the data retrieval computing device 111 performs an incremental filtering of each received per-source portion for a data source upon receiving of the per-source portion from the data source. In some embodiments, upon receiving a particular per-source portion from a data source, to perform the incremental filtering of the particular received per-source portion, the data retrieval computing device 111 determines whether combination of all received per-source portions up to the particular point of receiving the particular received per-source portion is sufficiently complete in relation to the query definition model generated in operation 502. In some of those embodiments, in response to determining that the combination of all received per-source portions is sufficiently complete in relation to the query definition model generated in operation 502, the data retrieval computing device 111 transmits at least a portion (e.g., a previously non-transmitted portion) of the combination to the query-initiating computing device 110. "];
until a threshold amount of the required data is retrieved.
[Column 7, lines 26-30 " some embodiments, the model completeness may determine how much of a data associated with a data retrieval query has been retrieved as a result of one or more successfully-completed executed data retrievals from particular data sources."].
[Column 20, lines 8-24 "Returning to FIG. 12, at operation 1203, the data retrieval computing device 111 determines whether a model completeness measure for the updated query processing model satisfies one or more completeness threshold criteria. In some embodiments, after updating the query processing model following receiving a particular per-source portion of the requested data nodes from a data source, the data retrieval computing device 111 determines a model completeness measure for the updated query processing model, wherein the model completeness measure for the updated query processing model indicates a structural similarity measure between a modeling structure of the query definition model and a processing structure of the query processing model. Subsequently, the data retrieval computing device 111 determines whether the model completeness measure satisfies the one or more completeness threshold criteria."].
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the Pasupalak with Li to incorporate Li’s technique into the conversational agent of Pasupalak to obtain missing required information from available databases and to ensure that a sufficient amount of information had been collected before invoking the selected service, thereby reducing incomplete service requests and unnecessary data retrieval.
Regarding claim 16, the rejection of claim 9 is incorporated.
Pasupalak in view of Li do teach
The system of claim 9, wherein the retrieving of the required data comprises: transmitting a query for a portion of the required data to a database; and receiving the portion of the required data from the database in response to the query, until a threshold amount of the required data is retrieved.
Claim 16 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 8.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHEZA ABDUL AZIZ whose telephone number is (571)272-9610. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30am-5pm 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, 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.
/SHEZA ABDUL AZIZ/Examiner, Art Unit 2657
/DANIEL C WASHBURN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2657
Prosecution Insights