DETAILED ACTION
Authorization for Internet Communications
The examiner encourages Applicant to submit an authorization to communicate with the examiner via the Internet by making the following statement (from MPEP 502.03):
“Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with the undersigned and practitioners in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application by video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.”
Please note that the above statement can only be submitted via Central Fax (not Examiner's Fax), Regular postal mail, or EFS Web using PTO/SB/439.
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 (IDS) submitted on 11/05/2025 is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 2 and 5 – 13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 2; the limitation “the set of criteria” lacks proper antecedent basis because there are multiple citations i.e., “a set of criteria” and “a second set of criteria” cited earlier in the claim.
Claims 5 – 13 are dependent claims and thus also objected.
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.
Claims 10 and 17 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.
The term “highly confidential category” in claim 10 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “highly confidential category” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining when information is “highly confidential” as distinguished from information that is merely “confidential”, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
The term “optimized” in claim 17 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “optimized” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining when an AI system is optimized for a task, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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) 1, 3 – 4, 14 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JACKSON (US 2025/0103715 A1) (hereinafter “Jackson”) in view of MOON et al., (US 2020/0244700 A1) (hereinafter “Moon”).
Regarding claim 1, Jackson discloses; a method for managing a set of artificial intelligence (AI) systems [i.e., a process flow for detecting and preventing prompt injection attacks on a machine learning system that uses LLMs (page 6, para 0074), (see figure 4)], the method comprising:
receiving an identity associated with a first user [i.e., the user’s identity may be confirmed by the client device 302 (page 5, para 0057), (see figure 3)];
determining whether the identity associated with the first user is authorized [i.e., the user’s identity may be confirmed by the client device 302…such confirmation may be done, for example, using a passcode (page 5, para 0057), (see figure 3)];
in response to a determination, reviewing a first prompt by determining whether the first prompt has met a set of criteria [i.e., determine whether the prompt is safe based on the pre-filter evaluation in response to incoming prompt (see ref. 402 - 406 of figure 4), (page 6, para 0076), and (page 7, para 0077)];
in response to a determination that the first prompt has met the set of criteria, using the first prompt as input to the set of Al systems [i.e., in response to determining that the prompt content is safe (i.e., determination block 406=”Yes”), the processor may process the prompt through the main LLM in block 414 (page 7, para 0079), (see ref. 406 and 414 of figure 4)];
receiving a first response associated with the first prompt from the set of Al systems [i.e., the LLM output (page 7, para 0080), (see figure 4)]; and
in response to a determination that the first response has met a second set of criteria, transforming the user interface to display the first response [i.e., in response to determination that the content of the LLM output is safe (i.e., determination block 418=”Yes”), the processor may generate a response based on the LLM output in block 424 (page 7, para 0084), (see ref. 418 and 424 of figure 4)].
Jackson does not disclose;
receiving an identity token; determining whether the identity token is authorized; in response to a determination that the identity token associated with the first user is not authorized, transforming a user interface to display a first error prompt; and in response to a determination that the identity token associated with the first user is authorized, reviewing a first prompt.
However, Moon discloses;
receiving an identity token [i.e., the received augmentation request may include one or more elements of authentication or consent data, such as the authentication token or the OAuth token (page 22, para 0147), (see ref. 402 of figure 4)];
determining whether the identity token is authorized [i.e., Authentication token and/or consent data valid? (see ref. 404 of figure 4), (page 22, para 0149)];
in response to a determination that the identity token associated with the first user is not authorized, transforming a user interface to display a first error prompt [i.e., if the authentication toke is not valid, generate and transmit error message to requesting system (see ref. 404 and 406 of figure 4), (page 22, para 0149)]; and
in response to a determination that the identity token associated with the first user is authorized, reviewing a first prompt [i.e., the authentication toke is valid, establish secure, programmatic communication within a chatbot application executed at a client device…transmit the generated response to the client device for presentation within a chatbot interface (see ref. 404, 410, 412 and 414 of figure 4), (page 23, para 0151)].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Jackon by adapting the teachings of Moon to dynamically and securely augment programmatically established chatbot session (See Moon; page 1, para 0001).
Regarding claim 3, Jackson discloses; the method of claim 1 wherein at least one AI system of the set of AI systems is a generative AI system [i.e., the main LLM may include one or more of generative artificial intelligent (AI) algorithms (page 7, para 0079)].
Regarding claim 4, Jackson discloses; the method of claim 1 wherein at least one AI system of the set of AI systems is a large language model [i.e., main LLM (page 7, para 0079)].
Regarding claim 14, Jackson discloses; the method of claim 1 wherein reviewing the first prompt includes capturing metadata associated with the first prompt [i.e., determining whether the content of the prompt is safe may be further based on context information received by one or more network computing device (page 1, para 0011)].
Regarding claim 19, Jackson discloses; the method of claim 1 further comprising:
receiving a set of characteristics and a characterizing number for each AI system of the set of AI systems [i.e., machine learning system 308 including main LLM engine 310 and the AI/ML architecture (para 0053), (see figure 3)]; and
determining a first subset of the set of AI systems based on the set of characteristics and the characterizing number for each AI system of the set of AI systems [i.e., criteria based prompt output processing (see figure 4), (para 0077)].
Claim(s) 2, 5 – 8, 11 – 13 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jackson in view of Moon as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Pickover et al., (US 2019/0349333 A1) (hereinafter “Pickover”).
Regarding claim 2, Jackson discloses; the method of claim 1 [i.e., (claim 1 above)], a criterion that is met when a confidentiality associated with the first prompt is below a first confidentiality threshold [i.e., sensitive information (page 3, para 0033) i.e., determine whether the prompt is safe based on the pre-filter evaluation in response to incoming prompt (see ref. 402 - 406 of figure 4), (page 6, para 0076), and (page 7, para 0077)].
Jackson and Moon do not disclose;
wherein the set of criteria includes: a criterion that is met when the first prompt is associated with a bias level below a bias threshold, a criterion that is met when the first prompt is associated with a toxicity level below a toxicity threshold, a criterion that is met when a confidentiality-score associated with the first prompt is below a first confidentiality-score threshold, and a criterion that is met when a first prompt does not contain one or more keywords included in a set of keywords.
However, Pickover discloses;
a criterion that is met when the first prompt is associated with a bias [i.e., filtering operations may include consideration of bias (page 5 para 0047)] level below a bias threshold [i.e., is the score of the received information greater than a score threshold? (see ref. 524 of figure 5B), (page 9, para 0093)], a criterion that is met when the first prompt is associated with a toxicity [i.e., filtering offensive information from being received by AI server based on determining that characteristics of the information are offensive in nature (page 3, para 0023)] level below a toxicity threshold [i.e., is the score of the received information greater than a score threshold? (see ref. 524 of figure 5B), (page 9, para 0093)], a criterion that is met when a confidentiality-score [i.e., filtering sensitive information or personally identifiable information (page 6, para 0055)] associated with the first prompt is below a first confidentiality-score threshold [i.e., is the score of the received information greater than a score threshold? (see ref. 524 of figure 5B), (page 9, para 0093)], and a criterion that is met when a first prompt does not contain one or more keywords [i.e., negative keyword…culturally insensitive keywords (page 6, para 0051)] included in a set of keywords [i.e., is the score of the received information greater than a score threshold? (see ref. 524 of figure 5B), (page 9, para 0093)].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Jackson and Moon by adapting the teachings of Pickover for detecting and blocking content that can develop undesired behavior by artificial intelligent (AI) entities toward users (See Pickover; page 1, para 0005).
Regarding claim 5, Jackson discloses; the method of claim 2 [i.e., (see claim 2 above)].
Jackson and Moon do not disclose;
further comprising, in response to a determination that the first prompt is associated with a bias level above a bias threshold, automatically generating an alert.
However, Pickover discloses;
in response to a determination that the first prompt is associated with a bias level above a bias threshold, automatically generating an alert [i.e., if the computer determines that the score of the received information is greater than the score threshold, yes output of the step 524, the computer prevents the received information from being provided to the AI entity (step 528) (see refs. 524 and 528 of figure 5B), (page 9, para 0093) i.e., sending an alert to a system administrator for review (page 6, para 0052)].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Jackson and Moon by adapting the teachings of Pickover for detecting and blocking content that can develop undesired behavior by artificial intelligent (AI) entities toward users (See Pickover; page 1, para 0005).
Regarding claim 6, Jackson discloses; the method of claim 2 [i.e., (see claim 2 above)].
Jackson and Moon do not disclose;
further comprising, in response to a determination that the first prompt is associated with a toxicity level above a toxicity threshold, automatically generating an alert.
However, Pickover discloses;
in response to a determination that the first prompt is associated with a toxicity level above a toxicity threshold, automatically generating an alert [i.e., if the computer determines that the score of the received information is greater than the score threshold, yes output of the step 524, the computer prevents the received information from being provided to the AI entity (step 528) (see refs. 524 and 528 of figure 5B), (page 9, para 0093) i.e., sending an alert to a system administrator for review (page 6, para 0052)].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Jackson and Moon by adapting the teachings of Pickover for detecting and blocking content that can develop undesired behavior by artificial intelligent (AI) entities toward users (See Pickover; page 1, para 0005).
Regarding claim 7, Jackson discloses; the method of claim 2 [i.e., (see claim 2 above)].
Jackson and Moon do not disclose;
wherein the bias level is based on content within the first prompt.
However, Pickover discloses;
wherein the bias level is based on content within the first prompt [i.e., filtering operations may include consideration of bias (page 5 para 0047)].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Jackson and Moon by adapting the teachings of Pickover for detecting and blocking content that can develop undesired behavior by artificial intelligent (AI) entities toward users (See Pickover; page 1, para 0005).
Regarding claim 8, Jackson discloses; the method of claim 2 [i.e., (see claim 2 above)].
Jackson and Moon do not disclose;
wherein the toxicity level is based on content within the first prompt.
However, Pickover discloses;
wherein the toxicity level is based on content within the first prompt [i.e., filtering offensive information from being received by AI server based on determining that characteristics of the information are offensive in nature (page 3, para 0023)].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Jackson and Moon by adapting the teachings of Pickover for detecting and blocking content that can develop undesired behavior by artificial intelligent (AI) entities toward users (See Pickover; page 1, para 0005).
Regarding claim 11, Jackson discloses; the method of claim 2 [i.e., (see claim 2 above)].
Jackson and Moon do not disclose;
further comprising, in response to a determination that an event associated with the first prompt occurred, automatically generating an alert.
However, Pickover discloses;
in response to a determination that an event associated with the first prompt occurred, automatically generating an alert [i.e., if the computer determines that the score of the received information is greater than the score threshold, yes output of the step 524, the computer prevents the received information from being provided to the AI entity (step 528) (see refs. 524 and 528 of figure 5B), (page 9, para 0093) i.e., sending an alert to a system administrator for review (page 6, para 0052)].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Jackson and Moon by adapting the teachings of Pickover for detecting and blocking content that can develop undesired behavior by artificial intelligent (AI) entities toward users (See Pickover; page 1, para 0005).
Regarding claim 12, Jackson discloses; the method of claim 2 [i.e., (see claim 2 above)].
Jackson and Moon do not disclose;
wherein the set of keywords relates to confidential information.
However, Pickover discloses;
wherein the set of keywords relates to confidential information [i.e., negative keyword…culturally insensitive keywords (page 6, para 0051) i.e., is the score of the received information greater than a score threshold? (see ref. 524 of figure 5B), (page 9, para 0093)].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Jackson and Moon by adapting the teachings of Pickover for detecting and blocking content that can develop undesired behavior by artificial intelligent (AI) entities toward users (See Pickover; page 1, para 0005).
Regarding claim 13, Jackson discloses; the method of claim 2 [i.e., (see claim 2 above)].
Jackson and Moon do not disclose;
further comprising, in response to a determination that the first prompt includes at least one keyword from the set of keywords, automatically removing the at least one keyword from the first prompt.
However, Pickover discloses;
in response to a determination that the first prompt includes at least one keyword from the set of keywords, automatically removing the at least one keyword from the first prompt [i.e., is the score of the received information greater than a score threshold? (see ref. 524 of figure 5B), (page 9, para 0093)].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Jackson and Moon by adapting the teachings of Pickover for detecting and blocking content that can develop undesired behavior by artificial intelligent (AI) entities toward users (See Pickover; page 1, para 0005).
Regarding claim 18, Jackson discloses; the method of claim 1 [i.e., (see claim 1 above)].
Jackson and Moon do not disclose;
wherein the set of criteria includes: a criterion that is met when the first prompt is associated with a bias level below a bias threshold, a criterion that is met when the first prompt is associated with a toxicity level below a toxicity threshold, a criterion that is met when a confidentiality-score associated with the first prompt is below a first confidentiality-score threshold, and a criterion that is met when a first prompt does not contain one or more keywords included in a set of keywords.
However, Pickover discloses;
a criterion that is met when the first prompt is associated with a bias [i.e., filtering operations may include consideration of bias (page 5 para 0047)] level below a bias threshold [i.e., is the score of the received information greater than a score threshold? (see ref. 524 of figure 5B), (page 9, para 0093)], a criterion that is met when the first prompt is associated with a toxicity [i.e., filtering offensive information from being received by AI server based on determining that characteristics of the information are offensive in nature (page 3, para 0023)] level below a toxicity threshold [i.e., is the score of the received information greater than a score threshold? (see ref. 524 of figure 5B), (page 9, para 0093)], a criterion that is met when a confidentiality-score [i.e., filtering sensitive information or personally identifiable information (page 6, para 0055)] associated with the first prompt is below a first confidentiality-score threshold [i.e., is the score of the received information greater than a score threshold? (see ref. 524 of figure 5B), (page 9, para 0093)], and a criterion that is met when a first prompt does not contain one or more keywords [i.e., negative keyword…culturally insensitive keywords (page 6, para 0051)] included in a set of keywords [i.e., is the score of the received information greater than a score threshold? (see ref. 524 of figure 5B), (page 9, para 0093)].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Jackson and Moon by adapting the teachings of Pickover for detecting and blocking content that can develop undesired behavior by artificial intelligent (AI) entities toward users (See Pickover; page 1, para 0005).
Claim(s) 15 - 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jackson in view of Moon as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Trim et al., (US 2020/0372381 A1) (hereinafter “Trim”).
Regarding claim 15, Jackson discloses; the method of claim 1 further comprising:
in response to a determination that the first prompt includes confidential information, removing the confidential information from the first prompt [i.e., (see claim 1 above)].
Jackson and Moon do not disclose;
automatically using the first prompt as input to a first AI system of the set of AI systems; automatically using the first prompt as input to a second AI system of the set of AI systems; receiving a response to the first prompt from the first AI system; receiving a response to the first prompt from the second AI system; comparing the response from the first AI system and the response from the second AI system; and transforming a user interface to display a revised response based on the response from the first AI system and the response from the second AI system.
However, Trim discloses;
automatically using the first prompt as input to a first AI system of the set of AI systems; automatically using the first prompt as input to a second AI system of the set of AI systems [i.e., a user may ask a question or make a request to the first and second devices, and that the control system enables the request to be detected by one or more registered AI system (para 0035 – 00036) i.e., in response to receiving a question, request, or instruction, each of the devices generate an answer as a result of the devices communicating with their respective AI system (para 0039), (ref. 116 – 120 of figure 2) i.e., the first AI system can generate an answer and initiate answers from other AI systems, including a second AI system or plurality of secondary AI system (para 0040)];
receiving a response to the first prompt from the first AI system; receiving a response to the first prompt from the second AI system [i.e., each AI system generates an answer to the received request (para 0039) i.e., the control system receives/evaluates the generated answers from the respective AI systems by rating each of the generated answers from each of the identified AI systems (para 0041), (see ref. 124 of figure 2)];
comparing the response from the first AI system and the response from the second AI system [i.e., rating the respective answers generated by the identified AI systems and determining whether a better answer is received…evaluates quality, veracity, trustworthiness and confidence of an answer, group of answers or combined answer in determining a single solution (para 0041)]; and
transforming a user interface to display a revised response based on the response from the first AI system and the response from the second AI system [i.e., a first AI system may initiate information requests to secondary AI systems, use the answer from the secondary AI system, review permutations of questions and responses and provide a combined answer as a single solution to the user (para 0049 – 0050)].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Jackson and Moon by adapting the teachings of Trim to prevent shortcomings and problems associated with different AI systems each generating answers to the same question or request by a user (See Trim; page 1, para 0005).
Regarding claim 16, Jackson discloses; the method of claim 1 [i.e., (see claim 1 above)].
Jackson and Moon do not disclose;
further comprising: based on a first outcome of a third set of criteria, automatically using the first prompt as input to a first AI system of the set of AI systems; and based on a second outcome of the third set of criteria, automatically using the first prompt as input to a second AI system of the set of AI systems.
However, Trim discloses;
based on a first outcome of a third set of criteria, automatically using the first prompt as input to a first AI system of the set of AI systems [i.e., a plurality of AI systems including a first AI system platform 24 associated with first device 20 and a second AI system platform 34 associated with second device 30 (para 0032), (see figure 1) i.e., the AI system receiving the request may be considered the first AI system, while another device and associated AI system may be considered the second AI system and that the first AI system may communicate with a plurality of secondary AI systems (para 0038)]; and
based on a second outcome of the third set of criteria, automatically using the first prompt as input to a second AI system of the set of AI systems [i.e., a plurality of AI systems including a first AI system platform 24 associated with first device 20 and a second AI system platform 34 associated with second device 30 (para 0032), (see figure 1) i.e., the AI system receiving the request may be considered the first AI system, while another device and associated AI system may be considered the second AI system and that the first AI system may communicate with a plurality of secondary AI systems (para 0038)].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Jackson and Moon by adapting the teachings of Trim to prevent shortcomings and problems associated with different AI systems each generating answers to the same question or request by a user (See Trim; page 1, para 0005).
Regarding claim 17, Jackson discloses; the method of claim 16 [i.e., (see claim 1 above)].
Jackson and Moon do not disclose;
wherein third set of criteria includes: a criterion that is met when the first AI system is unavailable, a criterion that is met when the second AI system is unavailable, a criterion that is met when the first AI system is optimized for a first task, a criterion that is met when the second AI system is optimized for a second task, a criterion that is met when a cost of using when the first AI system exceeds or falls below a threshold amount, a criterion that is met when a cost of using the second AI system exceeds or falls below a second threshold amount, a criterion that is met when the first AI system has a first data privacy policy, and a criterion that is met when the second AI system has a second data privacy policy.
However, Trim discloses;
wherein third set of criteria includes: a criterion that is met when the first AI system is unavailable, a criterion that is met when the second AI system is unavailable, a criterion that is met when the first AI system is optimized for a first task, a criterion that is met when the second AI system is optimized for a second task, a criterion that is met when a cost of using when the first AI system exceeds or falls below a threshold amount, a criterion that is met when a cost of using the second AI system exceeds or falls below a second threshold amount, a criterion that is met when the first AI system has a first data privacy policy, and a criterion that is met when the second AI system has a second data privacy policy [i.e., a plurality of AI systems including a first AI system platform 24 associated with first device 20 and a second AI system platform 34 associated with second device 30 (para 0032), (see figure 1) i.e., the AI system receiving the request may be considered the first AI system, while another device and associated AI system may be considered the second AI system and that the first AI system may communicate with a plurality of secondary AI systems (para 0038)].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Jackson and Moon by adapting the teachings of Trim to prevent shortcomings and problems associated with different AI systems each generating answers to the same question or request by a user (See Trim; page 1, para 0005).
Claim(s) 9 - 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jackson in view of Moon and Pickover as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Aggarwal et al., (US 2021/0182420 A1) (hereinafter “Aggarwal”).
Regarding claim 9, Jackson discloses; the method of claim 2 [i.e., (see claim 9 above)].
Jackson, Moon and Pickover do not disclose;
wherein the confidentiality-score is based on an amount of private information in the first prompt.
However, Aggarwal discloses;
wherein the confidentiality-score is based on an amount of private information in the first prompt [i.e., based upon the number of key phares within a segment, the system calculates the confidentiality score for the segment (page 4, para 0029)].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Jackon, Moon and Pickover by adapting the teachings of Aggarwal to allow people time to process and analyze a conversation in order to provide accurate answers or input with respect to a conversation (See Aggarwal; page 1, para 0001).
Regarding claim 10, Jackson discloses; the method of claim 2 [i.e., (see claim 2 above)].
Jackson, Moon and Pickover do not disclose;
further comprising wherein the confidentiality- score is organized into one of a set of categories including: a public information category, an internal information category, a confidential information category, and a highly confidential category.
However, Aggarwal discloses;
wherein the confidentiality- score is organized into one of a set of categories including: a public information category, an internal information category, a confidential information category, and a highly confidential category [i.e., confidential categories (page 4, para 0026 - 0027) i.e., a high level of alert, medium level alert (page 5, para 0034)].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Jackon, Moon and Pickover by adapting the teachings of Aggarwal to allow people time to process and analyze a conversation in order to provide accurate answers or input with respect to a conversation (See Aggarwal; page 1, para 0001).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SYED A RONI whose telephone number is (571)270-7806. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:00 pm (EST).
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, Jeffrey L Nickerson can be reached at (469) 295-9235. 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.
/SYED A RONI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2432
