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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. PCT/KR2022/014593, filed on 9/28/2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 3/28/2025 and 9/24/2025 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is/are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding dependent claim 15,
Claim 15 recites the following limitation:
“providing an utter agent including at least one recommendation query, …”
Which contains a minor typographical error in reciting an “utter agent”. The examiner believes the claim should read “utterance agent” as in claim 8.
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.
Claims 1-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding independent claim 1,
Claim 1 recites the following limitation(s):
wherein the intent analysis result information includes an intent result analysis for the user input that has been first processed based on at least one intent analysis factor transmitted to the server. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that “intent analysis” refers to a process of determining the motivation or reason behind an input such as a natural language text. This represents a process of evaluation or judgment that can be performed in the human mind and/or aided by pen & paper. For example, given a natural language text “How far is the nearest gas station?”, one of ordinary skill in the art may mentally determine that an intent of the text is to gather information relating to a distance of a particular utility, in this example a gas station, based on the contents of the texts.
Claim 1 recites the following additional elements:
an artificial intelligence device comprising: a display; Which recites a generic computer component used to perform the method.
and a processor configured to control the display, wherein the processor is configured to receive a user input, transmit the user input to a server, receive response information including intent analysis result information for the user input from the server, and perform at least one operation among outputting information and executing a function according to the response information, which encompasses a step of mere data gathering & outputting (e.g. receiving a user input, transmitting said input to a server and receiving response information are steps of data gathering. Performing an operation which includes data outputting based on an input operation is a step of data outputting), which represents insignificant extra-solution activity as described in MPEP 2106.05(g).
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the computer system elements are recited at a high level of generality. Which amounts to no more than applying the steps to within a generic computer environment. Accordingly, these elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.06(f). As such, the claim is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions applied to a generic computer environment. Mere instructions to apply a judicial exception using a generic computer environment cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept.
The additional elements, taken either alone or in combination do not result in the claim, as a whole, amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The following limitations represent elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity within the field of computer functions:
and a processor configured to control the display, wherein the processor is configured to receive a user input, transmit the user input to a server, receive response information including intent analysis result information for the user input from the server, and perform at least one operation among outputting information and executing a function according to the response information, which represents an element that is recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of storing and retrieving information in memory (e.g. outputting information retrieved from a server is a step of retrieving information in memory) as described in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv).
Therefore, the limitation may be recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity within the field of computer functions.
Based on the above, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding dependent claim 2,
Claim 2 depends upon Claim 1, as such claim 2 presents the same abstract idea of a mental process as identified in the discussion above.
Claim 2 recites the following additional limitation(s):
wherein the processor is configured to receive user feedback data according to the at least one operation performed, update the one or more intent analysis factors based on the feedback data, and transmit the updated intent analysis factors to the server. which encompasses a step of mere data gathering & outputting (e.g. obtaining feedback and transmitting said feedback to a server is a step of data gathering), which represents insignificant extra-solution activity as described in MPEP 2106.05(g).
The additional elements, taken either alone or in combination do not result in the claim, as a whole, amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The following limitations represent elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity within the field of computer functions:
wherein the processor is configured to receive user feedback data according to the at least one operation performed, update the one or more intent analysis factors based on the feedback data, and transmit the updated intent analysis factors to the server. Heere et al. (US PGPUB No. 2021/0089860; Pub. Date: Mar. 25, 2021) describes the limitations at issue: See Paragraph [0059], (Disclosing a digital assistant that provides proactive notifications to users. Digital assistant system 300 may receive explicit user feedback which is used to continuously update its internal knowledge representations, i.e. wherein the processor is configured to receive user feedback data according to the at least one operation performed) See Paragraph [0060], (Digital assistant system 300 may receive explicit user feedback to update detected entities or user intents in conversations, i.e. update the one or more intent analysis factors based on the feedback data) See FIG. 20 & Paragraph [0161], (FIG. 20 illustrates computer system 2000 for executing instructions 2024 for causing the system to perform the method. The system may be embodied as a networked deployment comprising server-client network environment.) See Paragraph [0074], (Conversation manager 320 may invoke a projection manager 340 when a detected intent requires execution or administration of a data processing job, i.e. and transmit the updated intent analysis factors to the server (e.g. intents are provided to conversation manager 320, which would include updated intents).)
Therefore, the limitation may be recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity within the field of computer functions.
Based on the above, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding dependent claim 3,
Claim 3 depends upon Claim 2, as such claim 3 presents the same abstract idea of a mental process as identified in the discussion above.
Claim 3 recites the following additional limitation(s):
a memory configured to communicate with the processor and store data, Which recites a generic computer component used to perform the method.
and wherein the processor is configured to parse the response information and to read, from the memory, information to be output and information related to executing the function based on the parsed response information. which encompasses a step of mere data gathering & outputting (e.g. parsing information to be output is a step of data outputting), which represents insignificant extra-solution activity as described in MPEP 2106.05(g).
The additional elements, taken either alone or in combination do not result in the claim, as a whole, amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The following limitations represent elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity within the field of computer functions:
and wherein the processor is configured to parse the response information and to read, from the memory, information to be output and information related to executing the function based on the parsed response information. Lewis Meza et al. (US Patent No.: 11,126,798; Date of Patent: Sep. 21, 2021) discloses the limitation at issue: See Col. 3, lines 64-65, (Computer system 100 comprises one or more processors and memories that implement the operations associated with the NLP system, i.e. a memory configured to communicate with the processor and store data.) See Col. 5, lines 60-61, (NLP system 106 may parse an input message 132 including natural language text in order to extract its meaning and formulate a message response 136, i.e. wherein the processor is configured to parse the response information and to read, from the memory, information to be output and information related to executing the function based on the parsed response information (e.g. message 132 is parsed to determine an intent which includes performing functions such as entity reduction and determining an intent in order to translate the message into control instructions for the NLG system).)
Therefore, the limitation may be recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity within the field of computer functions.
Based on the above, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding dependent claim 4,
Claim 4 depends upon Claim 3, as such claim 4 presents the same abstract idea of a mental process as identified in the discussion above.
Claim 4 recites the following additional limitation(s):
wherein when outputting information according to the intent analysis result information in the response information, the processor is configured to provide information configured as a first version or a second version based on the one or more intent analysis factors transmitted to the server. which encompasses a step of mere data gathering & outputting (e.g. the limitation describes a characteristic of information destined to be output, which is a step of data outputting), which represents insignificant extra-solution activity as described in MPEP 2106.05(g).
The additional elements, taken either alone or in combination do not result in the claim, as a whole, amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The following limitations represent elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity within the field of computer functions:
wherein when outputting information according to the intent analysis result information in the response information, the processor is configured to provide information configured as a first version or a second version based on the one or more intent analysis factors transmitted to the server. Lewis Meza et al. (US Patent No.: 11,126,798; Date of Patent: Sep. 21, 2021) discloses the limitation at issue: See FIGs. 10A-10B, (FIG. 10A illustrates a process wherein the NLP system may classify and learn in response to user messages. FIG. 10B illustrates an example conversation between a user and the system wherein the user may provide multiple responses as part of clarifying a user query, i.e. wherein when outputting information according to the intent analysis result information in the response information, the processor is configured to provide information configured as a first version (e.g. such as by responding to a user message that is understood by the system) or a second version based on the one or more intent analysis factors transmitted to the server (e.g. the system may provide a response based on an updated ontology as in step 1010). )
Therefore, the limitation may be recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity within the field of computer functions.
Based on the above, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding dependent claim 5,
Claim 5 depends upon Claim 4, as such claim 5 presents the same abstract idea of a mental process as identified in the discussion above.
Claim 5 recites the following additional limitation(s):
wherein when executing the function according to the intent analysis result information in the response information, the processor is configured to determine whether the function is capable of being executed, and when the determination result indicates that the function is not capable of being executed, provide recommended function information and execute the recommended function instead. Which recites a step of determining whether a process can be executed or not which is recited at a high degree of generality. The term “determine” is considered to be an observation or evaluation which are considered concepts performed in the human mind. For example, one of ordinary skill in the art may determine that a request is invalid such as performing invalid mathematical operations (e.g. dividing by zero) and may recommend a user perform other operations that yield more useful results. The process of determination may be made mentally and therefore the claim represents the abstract idea of a mental process.
Based on the above, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding dependent claim 6,
Claim 6 depends upon Claim 1, as such claim 6 presents the same abstract idea of a mental process as identified in the discussion above.
Claim 6 recites the following additional limitation(s):
wherein when an event occurrence is detected, the processor is configured to extract a previous user input, the intent analysis result information, and function execution operation information, which encompasses a step of mere data gathering & outputting (e.g. extracting previous user input is a step of data gathering), which represents insignificant extra-solution activity as described in MPEP 2106.05(g).
and output information on at least one of information on the recommended reward function, and execute the recommended reward function. which encompasses a step of mere data gathering & outputting (e.g. outputting information is a step of data outputting), which represents insignificant extra-solution activity as described in MPEP 2106.05(g).
The additional elements, taken either alone or in combination do not result in the claim, as a whole, amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The following limitations represent elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity within the field of computer functions:
wherein when an event occurrence is detected, the processor is configured to extract a previous user input, the intent analysis result information, and function execution operation information, Shang et al. (US PGPU No. 2022/0261833; Pub. Date: Aug. 18, 2022) discloses the limitation at issue: See Paragraphs [0003] & [0038], (Disclosing a system for determining a policy to prevent fading drivers having declining participation such as a decrease in driving frequency or length of time available for driving when compared to previous peaks in driving frequency or length of time. Policy engine 202 may optimize an incentive policy using a reinforcement learning system 204 through the generation of virtual trajectories of rewards, driver incentives and driver actions based on said incentives.
and output information on at least one of information on the recommended reward function, and execute the recommended reward function. Shang et al. (US PGPU No. 2022/0261833; Pub. Date: Aug. 18, 2022) discloses the limitation at issue: See Paragraph [0035], (Incentive server 126 may push incentives to transportation devices 112 via a communication network 114 by delivering coupons that may be redeemed by a driver based on the incentive strategy determined by strategy server 120, i.e. and output information on at least one of information on the recommended reward function, and execute the recommended reward function.
Therefore, the limitation may be recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity within the field of computer functions.
Based on the above, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding dependent claim 7,
Claim 7 depends upon Claim 1, as such claim 7 presents the same abstract idea of a mental process as identified in the discussion above.
Claim 7 recites the following additional limitation(s):
wherein the processor is configured to configure and store routine information on function execution in a memory, which encompasses a step of selecting a type or source of data to be manipulated (e.g. the limitation escribes a type of information, i.e. routine information) which represents insignificant extra-solution activity as described in MPEP 2106.05(g).
and, when the received intent analysis result information is related to at least one of the routines defined in the stored routine information, automatically execute the remaining routines included in the routine information. which encompasses a step of mere data gathering & outputting (e.g. executing a function in response to obtained intent analysis result information is a step of data gathering), which represents insignificant extra-solution activity as described in MPEP 2106.05(g).
The additional elements, taken either alone or in combination do not result in the claim, as a whole, amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The following limitations represent elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity within the field of computer functions:
wherein the processor is configured to configure and store routine information on function execution in a memory, Lewis Meza et al. (US Patent No.: 11,126,798; Date of Patent: Sep. 21, 2021) discloses the limitation at issue: See Col. 3, lines 64-66, (Computer system 100 may comprise one or more processors and associated memories that execute the process of generating responses via an AI platform 104 as in FIG. 1.) See Col. 9, lines 64-67, (FIG. 6A illustrates a rule set used to perform a reduction function to determine the meaning of an input phrase, i.e. wherein the processor is configured to configure and store routine information on function execution in a memory (e.g. the process of reduction comprises executing typed functions that convert lists of named entities into an aggregated named entity. The method is executed by computer system 100 by the one or more processors).)
and, when the received intent analysis result information is related to at least one of the routines defined in the stored routine information, automatically execute the remaining routines included in the routine information. Lewis Meza et al. (US Patent No.: 11,126,798; Date of Patent: Sep. 21, 2021) discloses the limitation at issue: See FIGs. 3A & 6A, (FIG. 3A comprises step 306 of performing entity reduction on a syntactically parsed message as in FIG. 6A. The method continues to step 308 of extracting the meaning from an input to determine an intent by translating said reduced message into control instructions, when the received intent analysis result information is related to at least one of the routines defined in the stored routine information (e.g. a syntactically parsed message is processed using named entity reduction), automatically execute the remaining routines included in the routine information (e.g. the method proceeds to step 308, 310 as part of providing a control instructions to the NLG system (e.g. remaining routines included in the routine information. Note that the one or more processors and memory store instructions for executing the method of FIG. 3A which includes performing entity reduction, determining intent, providing control instructions, etc.).)
Therefore, the limitation may be recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity within the field of computer functions.
Based on the above, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding dependent claim 8,
Claim 8 depends upon Claim 1, as such claim 8 presents the same abstract idea of a mental process as identified in the discussion above.
Claim 8 recites the following additional limitation(s):
wherein the processor is configured to provide an utterance agent including at least one recommended query, and wherein the at least one recommended query is written based on a recommended keyword configured based on at least one of intent analysis factors. which encompasses a step of mere data gathering & outputting (e.g. providing a recommendation is a step of data gathering), which represents insignificant extra-solution activity as described in MPEP 2106.05(g).
The additional elements, taken either alone or in combination do not result in the claim, as a whole, amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The following limitations represent elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity within the field of computer functions:
wherein the processor is configured to provide an utterance agent including at least one recommended query, and wherein the at least one recommended query is written based on a recommended keyword configured based on at least one of intent analysis factors. Greystoke et al. (US PGPUB No. 2015/0310131; Pub. Date: Oct. 29, 2015) discloses the limitation at issue: See Paragraph [0096], (Disclosing a collective intelligence experience system comprising a client interface that allows users to enter an initial search. The collective intelligence experience system may provide data including recommendations of better search terms, better searches or both to the client interface.) See FIG. 8 * Paragraph [0116], (FIG. 8 illustrates method 800 comprising step 804 wherein the system may determine a plurality of potential outcomes related to the request followed by step 806 of determining further potential outcomes based on collective information related to the request. The system may then present information including recommendations to a destination device via a GUI, i.e. wherein the processor is configured to provide an utterance agent including at least one recommended query, and wherein the at least one recommended query is written based on a recommended keyword configured based on at least one of intent analysis factors (e.g. recommended queries are displayed based on information relating to an initial request).)
Therefore, the limitation may be recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity within the field of computer functions.
Based on the above, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding independent claim 9,
The claim is analogous to the subject matter of independent claim 1 directed to a method or process and is rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding dependent claim 10,
The claim is analogous to the subject matter of dependent claim 2 directed to a method or process and is rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding dependent claim 11,
The claim is analogous to the subject matter of dependent claim 4 directed to a method or process and is rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding dependent claim 12,
The claim is analogous to the subject matter of dependent claim 5 directed to a method or process and is rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding dependent claim 13,
The claim is analogous to the subject matter of dependent claim 6 directed to a method or process and is rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding dependent claim 14,
The claim is analogous to the subject matter of dependent claim 7 directed to a method or process and is rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding dependent claim 15,
The claim is analogous to the subject matter of dependent claim 8 directed to a method or process and is rejected under similar rationale.
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1, 7, 9 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lewis Meza et al. (US Patent No.: 11,126,798; Date of Patent: Sep. 21, 2021).
Regarding independent claim 1,
Lewis Meza discloses an artificial intelligence device comprising: a display; See FIG. 1, (Disclosing an NLP system configured to extract meaning from a natural language message using improved parsing techniques. FIG. 1 illustrates a system 100 comprising conversational interfaces 120, 122, 124 configured to communicate with an Artificial Intelligence (AI) platform 104 via conversational gateway 102. Conversational interface 120 is labelled as a GUI, i.e. an artificial intelligence device comprising: a display;)
and a processor configured to control the display, wherein the processor is configured to receive a user input, See Col. 3, lines 36-46, (Conversational interfaces 120 may provide a GUI through which a user may type in a natural language message or provide a speech input, i.e. a processor configured to control the display, wherein the processor is configured to receive a user input (e.g. Note Col. 3, lines 64-65 wherein computer system 100 comprises one or more processors and memories).)
transmit the user input to a server, See Col. 6, lines 5-7, (Conversational gateway 102 may act as a traffic manager for receiving an input message 132 and routing the response from AI platform 104 to the appropriate channels. Note Col. 3, lines 61-63 wherein conversational interfaces may communicate with conversational gateway 102 over a network such as the Internet, i.e. transmit the user input to a server,
receive response information including intent analysis result information for the user input from the server, See FIG. 3A & Col. 6, lines 50-65, (FIG. 3A illustrates steps 302-308 of extracting the meaning from a received input message where step 308 comprises determining the intent of the message by translating a reduced message into control instructions for the Natural Language Generation (NLG) system, i.e. receive response information including intent analysis result information for the user input from the server (e.g. AI platform 104 receives control instructions for NLG system 108).)
and perform at least one operation among outputting information and executing a function according to the response information, See Col. 5, line 65 - Col. 6, line 3, (After extracting meaning from an input message 132 (e.g. such as via the method of FIG. 3A), NLP system 106 may provide control instructions to NLG system 108 in order to generate an appropriate response 16 to the input message, i.e. and perform at least one operation among outputting information (e.g. NLG system may generate a response to be delivered to a user in response to their input).)
wherein the intent analysis result information includes an intent result analysis for the user input that has been first processed based on at least one intent analysis factor transmitted to the server. See FIG. 3A & Col. 6, lines 50-65, (FIG. 3A illustrates steps 302-308 of extracting the meaning from a received input message where step 308 comprises determining the intent of the message by translating a reduced message into control instructions for the Natural Language Generation (NLG) system.) See Col. 11, lines 50-54, (The NLP system may determine the intent of a message based on rules that map aggregated named entities from reduced messages to intents, i.e. wherein the intent analysis result information includes an intent result analysis for the user input that has been first processed based on at least one intent analysis factor transmitted to the server (e.g. a user input is analyzed to determine control information for NLG system 108 by aggregating named entities according to rules used to generate an intent).)
Regarding dependent claim 7,
As discussed above with claim 1, Lewis Meza discloses all of the limitations.
Lewis Meza further discloses the step wherein the processor is configured to configure and store routine information on function execution in a memory,
and, when the received intent analysis result information is related to at least one of the routines defined in the stored routine information, automatically execute the remaining routines included in the routine information.
Regarding independent claim 9,
The claim is analogous to the subject matter of independent claim 1 directed to a method or process and is rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding dependent claim 14,
The claim is analogous to the subject matter of dependent claim 7 directed to a method or process and is rejected under similar rationale.
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(s) 2-4 and 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lewis Meza et al. (US Patent No.: 11,126,798; Date of Patent: Sep. 21, 2021) in view of Heere et al. (US PGPUB No. 2021/0089860; Pub. Date: Mar. 25, 2021).
Regarding dependent claim 2,
As discussed above with claim 1, Lewis Meza discloses all of the limitations.
Lewis Meza does not disclose the step the processor is configured to receive user feedback data according to the at least one operation performed, update the one or more intent analysis factors based on the feedback data, and transmit the updated intent analysis factors to the server.
Heere discloses the step the processor is configured to receive user feedback data according to the at least one operation performed, See Paragraph [0059], (Disclosing a digital assistant that provides proactive notifications to users. Digital assistant system 300 may receive explicit user feedback which is used to continuously update its internal knowledge representations, i.e. wherein the processor is configured to receive user feedback data according to the at least one operation performed)
update the one or more intent analysis factors based on the feedback data, See Paragraph [0060], (Digital assistant system 300 may receive explicit user feedback to update detected entities or user intents in conversations, i.e. update the one or more intent analysis factors based on the feedback data)
and transmit the updated intent analysis factors to the server. See FIG. 20 & Paragraph [0161], (FIG. 20 illustrates computer system 2000 for executing instructions 2024 for causing the system to perform the method. The system may be embodied as a networked deployment comprising server-client network environment.) See Paragraph [0074], (Conversation manager 320 may invoke a projection manager 340 when a detected intent requires execution or administration of a data processing job, i.e. and transmit the updated intent analysis factors to the server (e.g. intents are provided to conversation manager 320, which would include updated intents).)
Lewis Meza and Heere are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, digital assistant systems. It would have been obvious to anyone having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of Lewis Meza to include the method of updating the digital assistant using user feedback as disclosed by Heere. Paragraph [0060] of Heere discloses that the system may facilitate a user’s ability to provide feedback such as via follow-up questions which allows the digital assistant system to improve its behavior by taking into account a current user content as gleaned from the user inputs.
Regarding dependent claim 3,
As discussed above with claim 3, Lewis Meza-Heere discloses all of the limitations.
Lewis Meza further discloses a memory configured to communicate with the processor and store data, and wherein the processor is configured to parse the response information and to read, from the memory, information to be output and information related to executing the function based on the parsed response information. See Col. 3, lines 64-65, (Computer system 100 comprises one or more processors and memories that implement the operations associated with the NLP system, i.e. a memory configured to communicate with the processor and store data.) See Col. 5, lines 60-61, (NLP system 106 may parse an input message 132 including natural language text in order to extract its meaning and formulate a message response 136, i.e. wherein the processor is configured to parse the response information and to read, from the memory, information to be output and information related to executing the function based on the parsed response information (e.g. message 132 is parsed to determine an intent which includes performing functions such as entity reduction and determining an intent in order to translate the message into control instructions for the NLG system).)
Regarding dependent claim 4,
As discussed above with claim 3, Lewis Meza-Heere discloses all of the limitations.
Lewis Meza further discloses the step wherein when outputting information according to the intent analysis result information in the response information, the processor is configured to provide information configured as a first version or a second version based on the one or more intent analysis factors transmitted to the server. See FIGs. 10A-10B, (FIG. 10A illustrates a process wherein the NLP system may classify and learn in response to user messages. FIG. 10B illustrates an example conversation between a user and the system wherein the user may provide multiple responses as part of clarifying a user query, i.e. wherein when outputting information according to the intent analysis result information in the response information, the processor is configured to provide information configured as a first version (e.g. such as by responding to a a user message that is understood by the system) or a second version based on the one or more intent analysis factors transmitted to the server (e.g. the system may provide a response based on an updated ontology as in step 1010). )
Regarding dependent claim 10,
The claim is analogous to the subject matter of dependent claim 2 directed to a method or process and is rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding dependent claim 11,
The claim is analogous to the subject matter of dependent claim 4 directed to a method or process and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim(s) 5 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lewis Meza in view of Heere as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Madwed et al. (US PGPUB No. 2021/0375272; Pub. Date: Dec. 2, 2021).
Regarding dependent claim 5,
As discussed above with claim 4, Lewis Meza-Heere discloses all of the limitations.
Lewis Meza-Heere does not disclose the step wherein when executing the function according to the intent analysis result information in the response information, the processor is configured to determine whether the function is capable of being executed, and when the determination result indicates that the function is not capable of being executed, provide recommended function information and execute the recommended function instead.
Madwed discloses the step wherein when executing the function according to the intent analysis result information in the response information, the processor is configured to determine whether the function is capable of being executed, and when the determination result indicates that the function is not capable of being executed, provide recommended function information and execute the recommended function instead. See Paragraph [0043], (Disclosing a system for responding to a user by detecting user frustration and presenting alternative action. Alternate input component 282 may determine an alternative representation of a user input based on a determination that a user input may result in error or undesired response based on past interactions with different users, i.e. wherein when executing the function according to the intent analysis result information in the response information, the processor is configured to determine whether the function is capable of being executed (e.g. an error would represent an inability to successfully execute a transaction or process), and when the determination result indicates that the function is not capable of being executed, provide recommended function information (e.g. the system presents the alternative action) and execute the recommended function instead (e.g. a system may present the alternative action and request confirmation that the system should proceed with the alternative action).)
Lewis Meza, Heere and Madwed are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, digital assistant systems. It would have been obvious to anyone having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of Lewis Meza-Heere to include the method of providing alternative actions in response to a user input that may result in an error as disclosed by Madwed. Paragraph [0230] of Madwed discloses that the system may use a neural network to improve speech recognition using techniques such as back propagation which update weights of the neural network to reduce errors when processing training data.
Regarding dependent claim 12,
The claim is analogous to the subject matter of dependent claim 5 directed to a method or process and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim(s) 6 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lewis Meza as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shang et al. (US PGPU No. 2022/0261833; Pub. Date: Aug. 18, 2022).
Regarding dependent claim 6,
As discussed above with claim 1, Lewis Meza discloses all of the limitations.
Lewis Meza does not disclose the step wherein when an event occurrence is detected, the processor is configured to extract a previous user input, the intent analysis result information, and function execution operation information, and output information on at least one of information on the recommended reward function, and execute the recommended reward function.
Shang discloses the step wherein when an event occurrence is detected, the processor is configured to extract a previous user input, the intent analysis result information, and function execution operation information, See Paragraphs [0003] & [0038], (Disclosing a system for determine a policy to prevent fading drivers having declining participation such as a decrease in driving frequency or length of time available for driving when compared to previous peaks in driving frequency or length of time. Policy engine 202 may optimize an incentive policy using a reinforcement learning system 204 through the generation of virtual trajectories of rewards, driver incentives and driver actions based on said incentives.
and output information on at least one of information on the recommended reward function, and execute the recommended reward function. See Paragraph [0035], (Incentive server 126 may push incentives to transportation devices 112 via a communication network 114 by delivering coupons that may be redeemed by a driver based on the incentive strategy determined by strategy server 120, i.e. and output information on at least one of information on the recommended reward function, and execute the recommended reward function.
Lewis Meza and Shang are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, digital assistant systems. It would have been obvious to anyone having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of Lewis Meza to include the method of providing users with incentives based on machine learning techniques as disclosed by Shang. Paragraph [0034] of Shang discloses that the use of incentives allows for the retention of drivers for a ridesharing service. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that incentives may be provided to users with incentives relating to other environments to increase the user satisfaction with a system and improving the likelihood that the user will continue to interact with the digital assistant system.
Regarding dependent claim 13,
The claim is analogous to the subject matter of dependent claim 6 directed to a method or process and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim(s) 8 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lewis Meza as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Greystoke et al. (US PGPUB No. 2015/0310131; Pub. Date: Oct. 29, 2015).
Regarding dependent claim 8,
As discussed above with claim 1, Lewis Meza discloses all of the limitations.
Lewis Meza does not disclose the step wherein the processor is configured to provide an utterance agent including at least one recommended query, and wherein the at least one recommended query is written based on a recommended keyword configured based on at least one of intent analysis factors.
Greystoke discloses the step wherein the processor is configured to provide an utterance agent including at least one recommended query, and wherein the at least one recommended query is written based on a recommended keyword configured based on at least one of intent analysis factors. See Paragraph [0096], (Disclosing a collective intelligence experience system comprising a client interface that allows users to enter an initial search. The collective intelligence experience system may provide data including recommendations of better search terms, better searches or both to the client interface.) See FIG. 8 * Paragraph [0116], (FIG. 8 illustrates method 800 comprising step 804 wherein the system may determine a plurality of potential outcomes related to the request followed by step 806 of determining further potential outcomes based on collective information related to the request. The system may then present information including recommendations to a destination device via a GUI, i.e. wherein the processor is configured to provide an utterance agent including at least one recommended query, and wherein the at least one recommended query is written based on a recommended keyword configured based on at least one of intent analysis factors (e.g. recommended queries are displayed based on information relating to an initial request).)
Lewis Meza and Greystoke are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, search assistance systems. It would have been obvious to anyone having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of Lewis Meza to include the method of providing a user with recommended search queries as disclosed by Greystoke. Paragraph [0051] of Greystoke discloses that the system may provide a user with additional queries that may lead a user to beneficial outcomes that the user may not have considered to achieve a subjective "best" result based on collective information.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Fernando M Mari whose telephone number is (571)272-2498. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7am-4pm.
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, Ann J. Lo can be reached at (571) 272-9767. 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.
/FMMV/Examiner, Art Unit 2159
/ALBERT M PHILLIPS, III/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2159