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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 2-21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,593,608 (Kuo et al hereinafter Kuo) in further view of Hilleli (US 20210099317). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following reason:
Referring to Claim 9. Kuo discloses a method, comprising receiving, by a chat module executed on a computer system, one or more utterances associated with an online chat session conducted with a user (refer to claim 14); providing the one or more utterances to a first prediction model integrated with the chat module (refer to claim 14); in response to determining that the first prediction model fails to predict an intent of the user within a threshold based on the one or more utterances, providing, by the chat module, the one or more utterances to a second prediction model that is not integrated with the chat module (refer to claim 14);
determining, by the chat module, the intent of the user based on an output generated by the second prediction model (refer to claim 14 and 17);
generating, by the chat module, content based on the intent of the user (refer to claim, 14 and 15); and providing, by the chat module, the content to a user device of the user within the online chat session as a response to the one or more utterances (refer to claim 14-17).
Hilleli, in analogous art, further emphasize the well known in the features such as the chat system determine the model unable to predict an intent of the user within a threshold based on the one or more utterances (refer to par 0092, 0094-0097).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Kuo with Hilleli because Hilleli’s teaching would allow the system of Kuo to further provide clarification by determining boundaries of extraneous contents.
Referring to Claim 10. Kuo disclosed the method of claim 9, Kuo discloses wherein the generating the content is further based on the one or more utterances (refer to claim 14).
Referring to Claim 11. Kuo disclosed the method of claim 9, Kuo discloses determining that the first prediction model fails to predict the intent of the user based on a prediction output generated by the first prediction model being associated with a confidence level below the threshold (refer to claim 14).
Referring to Claim 12. Kuo disclosed the method of claim 9, Kuo discloses wherein the first prediction model is configured to classify the one or more utterances into one of a first plurality of intent classifications (refer to claim 14).
Referring to Claim 13. Kuo disclosed the method of claim 12, Kuo discloses wherein the second prediction model is configured to classify the one or more utterances into one of a second plurality of intent classifications, wherein the second plurality of intent classifications includes at least one intent classification not included in the first plurality of intent classifications (refer to claim 15 and 18).
Referring to Claim 14. Kuo disclosed the method of claim 9, Kuo discloses establishing the online chat session with the user device in response to receiving a chat request from the user device (refer to claim 15).
Referring to Claim 15. Kuo disclosed the method of claim 9, Hilleli discloses wherein the second prediction model is associated with an interactive voice response system (refer to par 0046).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Kuo with Hilleli because Hilleli’s teaching would allow the system of Kuo to further provide clarification by determining boundaries of extraneous contents.
Referring to Claims 2-8 and 16-21 are rejected under similar rational of claim 9-15.
Claims 2-21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,271,803 (Kuo et al hereinafter Kuo). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following reason:
Referring to Claim 9. Kuo discloses a method, comprising receiving, by a chat module executed on a computer system, one or more utterances associated with an online chat session conducted with a user (refer to claim 15); providing the one or more utterances to a first prediction model integrated with the chat module (refer to claim 15); in response to determining that the first prediction model fails to predict an intent of the user within a threshold based on the one or more utterances, providing, by the chat module, the one or more utterances to a second prediction model that is not integrated with the chat module (refer to claim 15);
determining, by the chat module, the intent of the user based on an output generated by the second prediction model (refer to claim 15);
generating, by the chat module, content based on the intent of the user (refer to claim 15); and providing, by the chat module, the content to a user device of the user within the online chat session as a response to the one or more utterances (refer to claim 15).
Referring to Claim 10. Kuo disclosed the method of claim 9, Kuo discloses wherein the generating the content is further based on the one or more utterances (refer to claim 15).
Referring to Claim 11. Kuo disclosed the method of claim 9, Kuo discloses determining that the first prediction model fails to predict the intent of the user based on a prediction output generated by the first prediction model being associated with a confidence level below the threshold (refer to claim 15).
Referring to Claim 12. Kuo disclosed the method of claim 9, Kuo discloses wherein the first prediction model is configured to classify the one or more utterances into one of a first plurality of intent classifications (refer to claim 1).
Referring to Claim 13. Kuo disclosed the method of claim 12, Kuo discloses wherein the second prediction model is configured to classify the one or more utterances into one of a second plurality of intent classifications, wherein the second plurality of intent classifications includes at least one intent classification not included in the first plurality of intent classifications (refer to claim 15 and 19).
Referring to Claim 14. Kuo disclosed the method of claim 9, Kuo discloses establishing the online chat session with the user device in response to receiving a chat request from the user device (refer to claim 15).
Referring to Claim 15. Kuo disclosed the method of claim 9, Kuo discloses wherein the second prediction model is associated with an interactive voice response system (refer to claim 18).
Referring to Claims 2-8 and 16-21 are rejected under similar rational of claim 9-15
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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(s) 2-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hilleli et al hereinafter Hilleli (US 2021/0099317) in view of Such et al hereinafter Such (US 2018/0137349).
Referring to Claim 9. Hilleli discloses a method, comprising receiving, by a chat module executed on a computer system, one or more utterances associated with an online chat session conducted with a user (obtain the contextual information, refer to par 0052 during chatting, refer to par 0051, 0061-0063); providing the one or more utterances to a first prediction model integrated with the chat module (chatting, refer to par 0051, and first prediction model/meeting content clarifier 261 in Fig 2, received with utterances, refer to par 0061. 261 comprises natural language processing component, refer to par 0062, 0064); in response to determining that the first prediction model fails to predict an intent of the user within a threshold based on the one or more utterances, providing, by the chat module, the one or more utterances to a second prediction model that is not integrated with the chat module (component 261 in Fig 2 the components, 261 unable to determine the action candidate item(s)/intent(s) from the conversation, refer to par 0076, 0078. The second mode 264 component, Fig 2 is able to identify the candidate action based on the failure to identify the intent/action item candidate of 261 information, refer to par 0076, 0078, 0086, 0126, The component is located at different computer systems/devices, refer to par 0043.);
determining, by the chat module, the intent of the user based on an output generated by the second prediction model (second model/264 is able to determine the action candidate item(s), refer to par 0126);
generating, by the chat module, content based on the intent of the user (generate and provide the action item to the user, par 0094, 0097); and
providing, by the chat module, the content to a user device of the user within the online chat session as a response to the one or more utterances (provide user an intent/action candidate information, refer to par 0093-0094, 0097).
Such, in analogous art, further emphasize the limitation of determine that the first prediction model is unable to predict an intent of the user within a threshold based on the one or more utterances (refer to par 0121).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Hilleli with Such because Such’s teaching would allow the system of Hilleli improve the ability to recognize the user’s intent during conversation.
Referring to Claim 10. Hilleli with Such disclosed the method of claim 9, Hilleli discloses wherein the generating the content is further based on the one or more utterances (conversations, refer to par 0051,0052, 0061-0063).
Referring to Claim 11. Hilleli with Such disclosed the method of claim 9, Such discloses determining that the first prediction model fails to predict the intent of the user based on a prediction output generated by the first prediction model being associated with a confidence level below the threshold (refer to par 0121).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Hilleli with Such because Such’s teaching would allow the system of Hilleli improve the ability to recognize the user’s intent during conversation.
Referring to Claim 12. Hilleli with Such disclosed the method of claim 9, Hilleli discloses wherein the first prediction model is configured to classify the one or more utterances into one of a first plurality of intent classifications (tokenize/tag the structure of the contexts by 261/first model, refer to par 0061,0063).
Referring to Claim 13. Hilleli with Such disclosed the method of claim 12, Hilleli discloses wherein the second prediction model is configured to classify the one or more utterances into one of a second plurality of intent classifications, wherein the second plurality of intent classifications includes at least one intent classification not included in the first plurality of intent classifications (further classification by using machine learning to determine the action item in 264, Fig 2 and refer to par 0086, 0135, 0136).
Referring to Claim 14. Hilleli with Such disclosed the method of claim 9, Hilleli discloses establishing the online chat session with the user device in response to receiving a chat request from the user device (invite to the meeting, refer to par 0125).
Referring to Claim 15. Hilleli with Such disclosed the method of claim 9, Hilleli discloses wherein the second prediction model is associated with an interactive voice response system (refer to par 0061-0067, 0070, 0093).
Referring to Claim 4. Hilleli with Such disclosed the system of claim 2, Hilleli discloses wherein providing the dialogue comprises: generate a response to the one or more utterance based on the predicted intent, and provide the response to the user device within the online chat session (refer to par 0093-0097).
Referring to Claim 5. Hilleli with Such disclosed the system of claim 2, Hilleli discloses receive one or more second utterances from a second user device associated with a second user during a second online chat session (one of the participants in the meeting, refer to par 0101); determine that both the first and second prediction models are unable to predict a second intent of the second user within the threshold based on the one or more second utterances (clarifier and action candidate classifier 261 and 262 unable to identify the intent/action item, refer to par 0082, and third mode/282 in Fig 2 will provide the support and provide additional context to identify the action item, refer to par 0082); in response to determining that both the first and second prediction models are unable to predict the second intent of the second user, provide the one or more second utterances to a third prediction model (the third model 286 is in additional support to identify the action item, refer to par 0082); and generate, based on an output of the third prediction model (third predict model 286, generated an output, 0094, and based on the output, the feedback from the action item, for retrain/reconfigure the model(s), refer to par 0097), an intent classification for re-configuring at least one of the first prediction model or the second prediction model (retrain the models, e.g., one of the models can be 261/clarifier layer refer to par 0097).
Referring to Claim 6, Hilleli with Such disclosed the system of claim 2, Hilleli discloses wherein the second prediction model is configured to determine a meaning of each word in the utterance based on analyzing one or more words surrounding the words (refer to 0076, 0077).
Referring to Claim 7, Hilleli with Such disclosed the system of claim 2, Hilleli discloses wherein the second prediction model is configured to modify a first word in the uttererance based on the first context determined for the first word (refer to par 0065).
Referring to Claim 8, Hilleli with Such disclosed the system of claim 2, Hilleli discloses wherein the first prediction model is a keywork base prediction model, and wherein the second prediction model is a bi-directional encoder representing from transformer model (refer to par 0062-0066, 0084-0086).
Referring to Claim 21, Hilleli with Such disclosed the non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 16, Hilleli discloses wherein the second prediction model is configured to determine a context associated with a first word in the one or more utterances based on analyzing one or more words surrounding the first word and modifying the first word based on the context (analyze the contextual data and modify the word, , refer to par 0076, 0075, 0145, 0146).
Referring to Claims 2-3 and 16-20 are rejected under similar rational of claim 4-15 and 21
Conclusion
A shortened statutory period for reply to this Office action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAREN C TANG whose telephone number is (571)272-3116. The examiner can normally be reached on 5:30am - 2:30pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joon H Hwang can be reached on (571) 272-4036. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KAREN C TANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2447
Prosecution Insights