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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 03/13/2025, 04/18/2025, 07/29/2025, 10/14/2025, 10/28.2025, 11/12/2025, 09/02/2026, and 09/16/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings were submitted on 03/13/2025. These drawings are reviewed and accepted by the examiner.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be allowable if the Double Patenting Rejection set forth in this Office action is overcome.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding independent claims 1, 15, and 20, the closest prior art the Examiner found was Trim et al. (US 20220027414 A1), which teaches:
“determining, [[by a first automated assistant executing at least in part on a computing device operated by a user]], that a second automated assistant failed to successfully respond to a request of the user, that was directed to the second automated assistant, or that the second automated assistant provided a suboptimal or inaccurate result to the request of the user, that was directed to the second automated assistant” (par. 0014; ‘The interaction between the user and the assigned VA is monitored and whenever the confidence score of the answer is lower than a threshold value the same question and associated conversation is transferred to multiple VAs to determine the highest confidence score value associated with the answer to the question.’; par. 0032; ‘Then at, 206, data amalgamation management program 110A, 110B monitors conversation with virtual assistants for low confidence score value. According to an example embodiment, the data amalgamation management program 110A, 110B monitors all the confidence score values that are coupled with all the answers generated by the available registered virtual assistants.’)
“in response to determining that the second automated assistant failed to successfully respond to the request of the user, that was directed to the second automated assistant, or that the second automated assistant provided the suboptimal or inaccurate result to the request of the user, that was directed to the second automated assistant, determining, by the first automated assistant, to cause a response that fulfills the request of the user, that was directed to the second automated assistant, to be provided for presentation to the user” (par. 0033; ‘If the data amalgamation management program 110A, 110B determines that the confidence score value is below a confidence threshold value (step 208, “YES” branch), the data amalgamation management program 110A, 110B may continue to step 210 to generates a dialog flow for another VA based on the determined skillsets.’); and
“causing, by the first automated assistant, the response that fulfills the request of the user, that was directed to the second automated assistant, to be provided for presentation to the user” (par. 0036; ‘Next, at 214, the data amalgamation management program 110A, 110B transfers the knowledge of the topic from another VA to the current VA for answer generation’).
In summary, Trim teaches a method of managing multiple digital personal assistants which monitors conversation with a virtual assistant for lower scoring answers. If the score if below a threshold, another virtual assistant is given the same question to answer.
However, the prior art of record, whether taken alone or in combination, fails to teach, inter alia, performing the determination by a first automated assistant executing at least in part on a computing device operated by a user, as in “determining, by a first automated assistant executing at least in part on a computing device operated by a user, that a second automated assistant failed to successfully respond to a request of the user, that was directed to the second automated assistant, or that the second automated assistant provided a suboptimal or inaccurate result to the request of the user, that was directed to the second automated assistant” in combination with the other claimed features.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 10, 15, 16, and 17 of U.S. Patent No. 11,557,300 B2. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because removing inherent and/or unnecessary limitations/step and rearranging the claims would be within the level of one of ordinary skill in the art. It is well settled that the omission of an element, e.g. executing a first automated assistant in an inactive state at least in part on a computing device operated by a user, cached audio, etc. (see claim 1 of US Patent) and its function is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same function as before. In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184 (CCPA 1963). Also note Ex parte Rainu, 168 USPQ 375 (Bd. App. 1969). Omission of a reference element or step whose function is not needed would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK VILLENA whose telephone number is (571)270-3191. The examiner can normally be reached 10 am - 6pm EST Monday through Friday.
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, Richemond Dorvil can be reached at (571) 272-7602. 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.
MARK . VILLENA
Examiner
Art Unit 2658
/MARK VILLENA/Examiner, Art Unit 2658
