2Notice 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
Response to Amendment
1. Applicant's amendments, filed December 31, 2025 are respectfully acknowledged and have been fully considered. The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set presently being applied to the instant application.
Applicants have amended their claims, filed December 31, 2025 and therefore rejections newly made in the instant office action have been necessitated by amendment.
Claims 1, 8, and 15 are amended.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-5, 7-12, and 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sekar et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 20210201238 A1, hereinafter “Sekar”) in view of Vale et al. (U.S. Patent Publication 20220342891 A1, hereinafter “Vale”).
Regarding Claim 1 (Currently Amended), Sekar teaches a system for responding to requests using a conversation engine (par 0068 Fig 2 chat server 240 may operate as an execution engine or environment for the chatbots 260), comprising:
a computer, comprising a processor and memory (par 0064 Figs 1,2 chat server 240 includes one or more processors 105 executing computer program instructions stored in memory 110), and configured to:
access a user interface via a client system (par 0067 Fig 3 chat server 240 may be in electronic communication with a client system 205 operated by the customer over a data communications network 210; chat server 240 may include a customer interface module 265 and an agent interface module 266 for generating a UI at the client system/ customer device 205; paras 0068-0069 customer input is captured by the chat server 240 from the client system UI using one or more chatbots par 0071 responding to input from the user [par 0082 Fig 5 chat interface 284 is a text display area 286 dedicated to the display of received and sent text messages, and a text input area 288 facilitates the customer's input of text messages]; par 0089 Fig 7 customer automation system 300 receives input at an initial step or operation 355. Such input may come from several sources. For example, a primary source of input may be the customer/user, where such input is received via the user interface 305 on the customer/user client device (e.g., customer device 205) as text (e.g., unstructured, natural language input));
provide a user input to a natural language processing engine (par 0090 Fig 7 customer automation system 300 parses the natural language of the input using the natural language processing (NLP) module 310 [par 0088]);
decode the user input by determining an intent (par 0090 Fig 7 customer automation system 300 NLP module decodes the user input language and determines therefrom the user’s intent using system 300’s intent inference module 315) and information associated with the intent (par 0090 Fig 7 determining/identifying one or more keywords from the customer input which might have corresponding potential intents),
search a knowledge base for a definition of the determined intent (par 0090 Fig 7 the intent may be automatically inferred from the user input text using artificial intelligence or machine learning techniques comprising searching a data/knowledge base of potential intents corresponding to keywords, the data/knowledge base having been generated from a collection of historical interaction recordings; par 0091 Fig 7 a script storage module 320 [a knowledge base par 0091 produced from mining data, actions, and dialogue from previous customer interactions] is searched to provide the “definition”/script of the determined intent, to include commands, operations [tasks, actions], text, and data fields [functions of the user interface] that will be required to complete an interaction in order to resolve the issue specified by the user's intent);
receive a response from the knowledge base (par 0091 Fig 7 the customer's intent is determined/received from the knowledge base; par 0091 Fig 7 step 365 customer automation system 300 provides/ loads a script [natural language response to the chat server/ conversation engine 240] associated with the given intent); and
provide a natural language response to the conversation engine for display by the user interface (par 0091 Fig 7 step 365 customer automation system 300 provides/ loads a script [natural language response to the chat server/ conversation engine 240] associated with the given intent; par 0051 chat server/conversation engine 240 operates to dispatch the actual chat conversation to the client/user interface).
However, Sekar appears not to expressly teach
wherein the user input is interpreted according to one or more meta-classes.
Vale teaches
wherein the user input (par 0056 Fig 5 user-generated request, par 0062 in an application user interface) is interpreted according to one or more meta-classes (par 0069 Fig 6C the user query is analyzed as to intent and context with reference to e.g. the domain ontology at multiple levels—class “Beam”, meta-classes “Material” and “Application”, etc.).
Sekar and Vale are analogous art as they each pertain to systems for responding to user information requests. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Sekar with the inclusion of the user input interpretation according to one or more meta-classes of Vale. The motivation would have been in order to provide matching of the problem context with the generative context of knowledge to assess the degree of similarity between the two, which then provides the basis for ranking the suitability of different resulting outputs for the problem context (Vale par 0082).
Regarding Claim 2 (Original), Sekar as modified teaches the system of Claim 1, wherein
a definition of the determined intent is associated with one or more of:
a task, an action, a service, a navigation, and a function of the user interface (Sekar par 0091 Fig 7 a script storage module 320 [a knowledge base par 0091 produced from mining data, actions, and dialogue from previous customer interactions] is searched to provide the “definition”/script of the determined intent, to include commands, operations [tasks, actions], text, and data fields [functions of the user interface] that will be required to complete an interaction in order to resolve the issue specified by the user's intent).
Regarding Claim 3 (Original), Sekar as modified teaches the system of Claim 1, wherein
the knowledge base comprises a searchable index of definitions (Sekar par 0091 Fig 7 script storage / knowledge base 320 comprises a searchable index of definitions/scripts that may be stored therein and retrieved therefrom).
Regarding Claim 4 (Original), Sekar as modified teaches the system of Claim 1, wherein
the knowledge base comprises definitions which define at least one task associated with the intent (Sekar par 0091 Fig 7 a script storage module 320 [a knowledge base par 0091 produced from mining data, actions, and dialogue from previous customer interactions] is searched to provide the “definition”/script of the determined intent, to include commands, operations [tasks, actions], text, and data fields [functions of the user interface] that will be required to complete an interaction in order to resolve the issue specified by the user's intent).
Regarding Claim 5 (Original), Sekar as modified teaches the system of Claim 4, wherein
the at least one task comprises one or more activities to complete the at least one task (Sekar par 0091 Fig 7 a script storage module 320 [a knowledge base par 0091 produced from mining data, actions, and dialogue from previous customer interactions] is searched to provide the “definition”/script of the determined intent, to include commands, operations [tasks, actions], text, and data fields [functions of the user interface] that will be required to complete an interaction in order to resolve the issue specified by the user's intent.
Regarding Claim 7 (Original), Sekar as modified teaches the system of Claim 1, wherein
the conversation engine is configured to display one or more of:
a task list (Sekar par 0107 customer automation system 300 may present automatically generated “quick actions” to the customer based on the customer's inferred intent), one or more available services, one or more tools and one or more utilities.
Claim 8 presents the limitations of Claim 1 in a different claim category, and therefore Claim 8 is rejected with a rationale similar to Claim 1, mutatis mutandis.
Claim 9 presents the limitations of Claim 2 in a different claim category, and therefore Claim 9 is rejected with a rationale similar to Claim 2, mutatis mutandis.
Claim 10 presents the limitations of Claim 3 in a different claim category, and therefore Claim 10 is rejected with a rationale similar to Claim 3, mutatis mutandis.
Claim 11 presents the limitations of Claim 4 in a different claim category, and therefore Claim 11 is rejected with a rationale similar to Claim 4, mutatis mutandis.
Claim 12 presents the limitations of Claim 5 in a different claim category, and therefore Claim 12 is rejected with a rationale similar to Claim 5, mutatis mutandis.
Claim 14 presents the limitations of Claim 7 in a different claim category, and therefore Claim 14 is rejected with a rationale similar to Claim 7, mutatis mutandis.
Claim 15 presents the limitations of Claim 1 in a different claim category, and therefore Claim 15 is rejected with a rationale similar to Claim 1, mutatis mutandis.
Claim 16 presents the limitations of Claim 2 in a different claim category, and therefore Claim 16 is rejected with a rationale similar to Claim 2, mutatis mutandis.
Claim 17 presents the limitations of Claim 3 in a different claim category, and therefore Claim 17 is rejected with a rationale similar to Claim 3, mutatis mutandis.
Claim 18 presents the limitations of Claim 4 in a different claim category, and therefore Claim 18 is rejected with a rationale similar to Claim 4, mutatis mutandis.
Claim 19 presents the limitations of Claim 5 in a different claim category, and therefore Claim 19 is rejected with a rationale similar to Claim 5, mutatis mutandis.
Claims 6, 13, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sekar et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 20210201238 A1, hereinafter “Sekar”) in view of Vale et al. (U.S. Patent Publication 20220342891 A1, hereinafter “Vale”) and further in view of Asefi et al. (U.S. Patent Publication 11481559 B1, hereinafter “Asefi”).
Regarding Claim 6 (Original), Sekar as modified teaches the system of Claim 1. However, Sekar as modified appears not to expressly teach wherein
the client system comprises a single sign on portal.
Asefi teaches a Workflow Management System wherein
the client system comprises a single sign on portal (col 6 lines 1-4 the bot console may include a single sign-on component).
Sekar Vale and Asefi are analogous art as they each pertain to systems for responding to user information requests. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Sekar/Vale with the inclusion of the client system comprising a single sign on portal of Asefi. The motivation would have been in order to provide secure but streamlined access to configuring and managing authentication between the various components of the processing platforms (Asefi col 6 lines 1-6).
Claim 13 presents the limitations of Claim 6 in a different claim category, and therefore Claim 13 is rejected with a rationale similar to Claim 6, mutatis mutandis.
Claim 20 presents the limitations of Claim 6 in a different claim category, and therefore Claim 20 is rejected with a rationale similar to Claim 6, mutatis mutandis.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 31, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments with respect to independent claims 1, 8, and 15 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK EDWARDS whose telephone number is (571)270-7731. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9a-5p 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, Matthew Eason can be reached on 571-270-7230. 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.
/MARK EDWARDS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2624