Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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
2. Claims 1-51 are presented for examination.
3. This office action is in response to the claims filed 07/17/2025.
4. Claims 1, 18 and 35 are independent claims.
5. The office action is made Non-Final.
Information Disclosure Statement
6. The information disclosure statement (IDSs) submitted on 09/30/2025 was considered by the examiner.
Examiner Note
7. The Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the Applicant(s). Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the Applicant fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
8. 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.
9. 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)(1) The claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention;
10. Claims 1-13, 15-30, 32-47 and 49-51 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (1) as being anticipated by Khemka et al (US 20230409615 A1) hereinafter as Meta.
Khemka et al (US 20230409615 A1) hereinafter as Meta was cited in the IDS received 09/30/2025 (US. Patent Application Publications Row 2)
11. Regarding claim 1, Meta teaches a method for operating a conversional virtual assistant system ([0045], “The assistant system 140 may enable the user to interact with the assistant system 140 via user inputs of various modalities (e.g., audio, voice, text, vision, image, video, gesture, motion, activity, location, orientation) in stateful and multi-turn conversations to receive assistance from the assistant system 140.”) comprising:
receiving, via a conversational interface, one or more initial user inputs and one or more initial user input parameters associated with the one or more initial user inputs ([0045], “a user input may comprise an audio input based on the user's voice (e.g., a verbal command), which may be processed by a system audio API (application programming interface) on client system 130.”, [0161], “One of these models may be a dialogue state tracking (DST) model, which may estimate the user's goal, i.e., the dialogue state, as dialogue progresses. DST may be important to task-oriented dialogue as the dialogue state serves as parameters for queries sent to application programming interfaces to retrieve necessary information, such as a list of restaurant names with a cuisine type, that is used to ground the dialogue model's response.”);
determining, by a first instance of a large language model associated with a conversational outer loop, based on the one or more initial user inputs and the one or more initial user input parameters, one or more initial user intents associated with the one or more initial user inputs ([0051], “intent determined”, [0091], “the assistant system 140 may implement dialog optimization techniques to obviate the need to confirm who a user wants to call (user intent) because the assistant system 140 may determine a high confidence that a person inferred based on context and available data is the intended recipient.”, “The dialog manager 216 may comprise dialog intent resolution 356. the dialog intent resolution 356 may resolve the user intent associated with the current dialog session based on dialog history between the user and the assistant system 140.”, [0109-0110]);
causing, by the first instance of the large language model, based on a determination that the one or more initial user intents and one or more initial user input parameters are unclear, the conversational interface to output one or more clarifying prompts, wherein the one or more clarifying prompts are configured to clarify the one or more initial user intents ([0088], “the entity resolution module 212 may perform user-facilitated disambiguation (e.g., getting real-time user feedback from users on these candidates).”, [0101], “The dialog manager 216 may additionally support disambiguation for the nested slots…This capability may allow the assistant system 140 to interact with the user not only to collect missing slot values but also to reduce ambiguity of more complex/ambiguous utterances to complete the task.”, “The general policy 362 may examine the resolution state and create corresponding dialog action for user clarification.”, “allow the assistant system 140 to interact with the user not only to collect missing slot values but also to reduce ambiguity of more complex/ambiguous utterances to complete the task. ”, [0142], [0144], “intent disambiguation when the assistant system 140 needs clarification on the intent of the request.”);
receiving, by the first instance of the large language model, in response to the one or more clarifying prompts, one or more second user inputs, wherein the one or more second user inputs comprise one or more second user input parameters ([0101], “The general policy 362 may examine the resolution state and create corresponding dialog action for user clarification.”, “allow the assistant system 140 to interact with the user not only to collect missing slot values but also to reduce ambiguity of more complex/ambiguous utterances to complete the task. ” [0161]);
determining, by the first instance of the large language model associated with the conversational outer loop, based on the one or more second user inputs, one or more second user intents associated with the one or more second user inputs and one or more second user input parameters ([0051], [0100]); and
determining, based on the one or more second user intents and the one or more second user input parameters, and via an inner execution loop, one or more chained predefined questions, wherein the one or more chained predefined questions are associated with one or more deterministic scripts, and wherein the one or more deterministic scripts are configured to define one or more ordered sequences of one or more low level functions (Fig 5, [0125], Fig 7, [0135], [0139], [0161]).
12. Regarding claim 2, Meta teaches the invention as claimed in claim 1 above and further teaches validating the one or more second user intents and the determination of the one or more chained predefined questions (Fig 5, [0125]); executing, via the inner execution loop configured to execute the one or more deterministic scripts, according to the one or more deterministic scripts, one or more low level functions ([0139], [0161]); based on executing the one or more low level functions, sending, by the inner execution loop, to the first instance of the large language model associated with the conversational outer loop, one or more answers to the one or more chained predefined questions ([0140]); validating, by a second instance of the large language model associated with an inner loop, the one or more answers generated by the inner execution loop ([0142]); and outputting, via the conversational interface, the one or more answers ([0143]).
13. Regarding claim 3, Meta teaches the invention as claimed in claim 1 above and further teaches wherein the one or more predefined questions are aggregated in a question bank associated with an authoring workbench, wherein the authoring workbench is configured to allow one or more users to write one or more high level instructions and wherein the authoring workbench comprises a third instance of a large language model ([0141]), and wherein the third instance of the large language model is configured to:
receive the one or more high level instructions authored by one or more users ([0109]); and translate the one or more high level instructions authored by the one or more users into one or more deterministic scripts ([0142-0143]).
14. Regarding claim 4, Meta teaches the invention as claimed in claim 1 above and further teaches wherein the conversational outer loop is configured to utilize the first instance of the large language model to clarify, by outputting one or more clarifying prompts configured to solicit one or more parameter values, one or more ambiguous user inputs and dynamically re-map the one or more initial user inputs to one or more of: the one or more chained predefined questions or the one or more deterministic scripts, wherein the one or more chained predefined questions are associated with the one or more deterministic scripts ([0144-0145]).
15. Regarding claim 5, Meta teaches the invention as claimed in claim 1 above and further teaches wherein the one or more deterministic scripts are generated based on one or more high level instructions authored by one or more subject matter experts and wherein the one or more deterministic scripts comprise one or more execution inner loop scripts configured to be executed in a controlled environment with a restricted and segmented chat history configured to prevent hallucinations by restricting interactions to predefined logic flows and a specified ;et of functions, the method further comprising translating, by an authoring workbench instance of the large language model, the one or more high level instructions into the one or more deterministic scripts which are configured to state a set of actions, wherein the set of actions and one or more large language model translations are configured to be validated by the one or more subject natter experts to validate that the large language model has produced a correct chain-of-thought reasoning ([0078], [0124], [0143]).
16. Regarding claim 6, Meta teaches the invention as claimed in claim 1 above and further teaches wherein the conversional virtual assistant system comprises a test harness and wherein the test harness comprises an automated environment configured to compare a question bank against a sandbox instance of a target system, and wherein the test harness is configured to use one or more validation checks to determine the one or more initial user inputs or one or more second user inputs were answered correctly ([0107], [0194]).
17. Regarding claim 7, Meta teaches the invention as claimed in claim 1 above and further teaches performing, by a separate large language model agent, a validation check associated with the inner execution loop, wherein the validation check associated with the inner execution loop is configured to ensure the one or more deterministic scripts were executed diligently ([0094], [0112]); and performing a validation check associated with the conversational outer loop, wherein the validation check associated with the conversational outer loop is configured to ensure the one or more initial user input parameters were correctly passed to the inner execution loop ([0031], [0107]).
18. Regarding claim 8, Meta teaches the invention as claimed in claim 1 above and further teaches handling, on a segmented basis respectively for the conversational outer loop, the inner execution loop, and an authoring workbench, one or more large language model context window constraints ([0109]).
19. Regarding claim 9, Meta teaches the invention as claimed in claim 1 above and further teaches wherein determining one or more of the one or more initial user intents or the one or more second user intents comprise determining one or more answers to one or more questions and joining the one or more answers ([0135]).
20. Regarding claim 10, Meta teaches the invention as claimed in claim 1 above and further teaches dynamically updating a centralized question bank storing the one or more deterministic scripts and metadata configured to indicate one or more available functions, wherein the updating may occur without deploying new software via one or more new rules or via one or more new reports ([0139], [0161]).
21. Regarding claim 11, Meta teaches the invention as claimed in claim 10 above and further teaches generating, via an authoring workbench system, and based on the metadata, one or more reports, wherein the one or more reports are configured to allow flexible extension of available data and the one or more available functions without system coding ([0061], [0064]).
22. Regarding claim 12, Meta teaches the invention as claimed in claim 1 above and further teaches determining, based on one or more user identifiers associated with one or more of: the one or more initial user inputs or the one or more second user inputs, one or more persona based access controls, wherein the one or more persona based access controls are configured to restrict access to data, based on one or more unblinded designations associated with one or more personas or one or more blinded designations associated with the one or more personas, to one or more users ([0046], [0087]).
23. Regarding claim 13, Meta teaches the invention as claimed in claim 1 above and further teaches accessing one or more distinct applications during a conversational session ([0031]).
24. Regarding claim 15, Meta teaches the invention as claimed in claim 1 above and further teaches generating, based on one or more of the one or more initial user inputs, the one or more initial user intents, the one or more chained predefined questions, the one or more deterministic scripts, one or more low level functions, the one or more initial user input parameters, one or more high level instructions, or one or more answers, one or more auditable logs associated with one or more conversational sessions, wherein the one or more auditable logs are configured to provide one or more of retrospective validation or analysis of one or more question-answer flows ([0044], [0078], [0089], [0091]).
25. Regarding claim 16, Meta teaches the invention as claimed in claim 1 above and further teaches determining, via a feedback mechanism, one or more unanswered user queries ([0112], [0120]); and determining, based on the one or more unanswered user queries, one or more system updates ([0159]).
26. Regarding claim 17, Meta teaches the invention as claimed in claim 1 above and further teaches determining, via a self-awareness application, and based on one or more personas and one or more application configurations, one or more available query functionalities ([0046]); and outputting, via a conversational interface, the one or more available query functionalities ([0046]).
27. Regarding claims 18-30 and 32-34, those claims recite a system performs the method of claims 1-13 and 15-17 respectively and are rejected under the same rationale.
28. Regarding claims 35-47 and 49-51, those claims recite a non-transitory computer-readable media storing processor- executable instructions thereon, which, when executed by at least one processor cause the at least one processor to perform the method of claims 1-13 and 15-17 respectively and are rejected under the same rationale.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
29. 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.
30. 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) A patent may not be obtained through the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
31. Claims 14, 31 and 48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being unpatentable over Khemka et al (US 20230409615 A1) hereinafter as Meta in view of Wang et al (US 20190332680 A1) hereinafter as SRI.
Wang et al (US 20190332680 A1) hereinafter as SRI was cited in the IDS received 09/30/2025 (US. Patent Application Publications Row 1)
32. Regarding claim 14, Meta teaches the invention as claimed in claim 1 above, Meta did not specifically teach claim 14.
However, SRI teaches determining one or more languages associated with one or more of the one or more initial user inputs or the one or more second user inputs, wherein determining the one or more languages comprises one or more of performing a keyword localization or activating a multilingual support application ([0366]); and outputting, based on the one or more languages, one or more answers ([0375]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the conversational assistant method taught by Meta with the multilingual virtual assistant taught by SRI, since doing so would enable the method to be developed for one language and accept verbal input in a different language for use in a variety of input languages (para [0078] - "Rapid development of multi-lingual verbal input and output systems are thus provided. In various implementations, systems are described that leverage machine translation to enable a system developed for one language to accept verbal input in a different language. Generally, underlying system is well developed, and has a high degree of capability. By reusing the underlying system, robust natural language understanding, reasoning, and other intent processing systems can be used for a variety of input languages.").
33. Regarding claim 31, this claim recites a system performs the method of claim 14 and is rejected under the same rationale.
34. Regarding claim 48, this claim recites a non-transitory computer-readable media storing processor- executable instructions thereon, which, when executed by at least one processor cause the at least one processor to perform the method of claim 14 and is rejected under the same rationale.
CONCLUSION
35. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant s disclosure.
Sheward et al (US 20240403302 A1) discloses providing personalized content suggestions using an AI-assisted virtual assistant.
Kok et al (US 20250356269 A1) discloses techniques for planning travel through an interactive conversational exchange.
LaRhette et al (US 20240281472 A1) discloses providing enhanced search capabilities using fine-tuned machine learning models.
Moon et al (US 11442992 B1) discloses hardware and software for smart assistant systems.
Zhu et al (US 11157490 B2) discloses Conversational virtual assistance for delivering relevant query solutions.
Abdallah et al (US 12413541 B2) discloses Artificial assistant system notification techniques.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HICHAM SKHOUN whose telephone number is (571)272-9466. The examiner can normally be reached Normal schedule: Mon-Fri 10am-6:30pm.
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, Amy Ng can be reached at 5712701698. 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.
/HICHAM SKHOUN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2164
Prosecution Insights