Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application 17/385,643, filed on 7/26/2021 (or after March 16, 2013), is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA (First Inventor to File).
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.
This application is a CON of 15/936,013 filed on 03/26/2018 is now US PAT 11074280 15/936,013 has PRO 62/580,444 filed on 11/01/2017
This application has PRO 62/576,804 filed on 10/25/2017
This application has PRO 62/576,766 filed on 10/25/2017
This application has PRO 62/539,866 filed on 08/01/2017
This application has PRO 62/509,534 filed on 05/22/2017
This application has PRO 62/508,181 filed on 05/18/2017
DETAILED ACTION
Response to RCE-3
Claims 21-34,36-40 are pending in this application.
Examiner acknowledges applicant’s amendment filed on 9/25/2025.
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set
forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this
application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set
forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action
has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on
3/10/2025 has been entered, office action mailed on 3/25/2025.
Drawings
The Drawings filed on 7/26/2021 are acceptable for examination purpose.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for US domestic priority application
serial number # PRO 62/580,444 filed on 11/01/2017
This U.S. Provisional Patent application has 62/576,804 filed on 10/25/2017
This U.S. Provisional Patent application has 62/576,766 filed on 10/25/2017
This U.S. Provisional Patent application has 62/539,866 filed on 08/01/2017
This U.S. Provisional Patent application has 62/509,534 filed on 05/22/2017
This U.S. Provisional Patent application has 62/508,181 filed on 05/18/2017
under 35 U.S.C. 119 (e)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 21-34.36-40, filed 9/25/2025 have been fully considered, for examiner’s response, see discussion below:
a)At page 7, examiner acknowledges applicant’s remarks on double patent rejection, however, applicant may consider filing terminal disclaimer to overcome double patent rejection.
b) At page 7-8, claim 21-34.36-40, applicant argues:
claims recite subject matter directed to improving a technology — namely the performance of actions via digital assistants, and thus recite subject matter eligible under Section 101. A claim recites subject matter suitable under Section 101 when the claim includes elements that are integrated into a practical application, and not merely abstract, further claims are directed to various practical applications, such as a digital assistant executing actions based on commands that are previously unknown to the digital assistant, where such commands are associated with one another and ranked based on various metrics. The digital assistant may then execute one or more actions by executing the commands, such as by performing an action via an application associated with the digital assistant.
Thus, the claims are directed to subject matter that is sufficient under Section 101 — techniques for commanding and executing actions by a digital assistant. It follows that the claims integrate a practical application. For at least these reasons, the pending claims, as a whole, integrates a process into a practical application, as they are directed to a particular and specific improvement for a digital assistant. Such features recite a particular application and are therefore not directed to any judicial exceptions
Examiner’s response:
Examiner submits that the pending claims (as amended 9/25/2025) should pass the test set forth in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance published on January 7, 2019 (84 Fed. Reg. 50), as updated October 2019, referred to herein as the PEG 2019. Applicant will focus on Prong Two of Step 2A, in evaluating the pending claims using this section of the test set forth in the PEG 2019
As explained in the 2019 PEG, the evaluation of Prong Two of Step 2A requires the use of the considerations (e.g. improving technology, effecting a particular treatment or prophylaxis, implementing with a particular machine, etc.) identified by the Supreme Court and the Federal Circuit, to ensure that the claim as a whole “integrates [the] judicial exception into a practical application [that] will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception, does not make the claim rooted in computer technology or improve the functioning of a computer. For example claim 21 additional limitations as amended “relevant command score is based on determining a discounted cumulative gain (DCG) associated with a command distance between the additional command and the command set, and wherein the command distance is based on a Jensen-Shannon (IS) divergence for the additional command and the command set,……”, the discounted cumulative gain” is known algorithm particularly summing the data and/or information simply as metric, “Jensen-Shannon (IS) divergence” is also known algorithm particularly measure of similarity between two probability distribution - is a matric improves the accuracy of metric “statistical data” and is NOT improvement to “language model” or “document language model” or the functioning of a computing device(s), and hence does not result in a practical application. It is further noted that additional “discounted cumulative gain (DCG)” limitations are either performing basic computing algorithm such as routine computing data, performing functions and/ort commands “known” in the art and hence are well-understood, routine and conventional activities and do not amount or add significantly more. The limitations when taken individually or as an ordered combination do not offer an inventive concept that may amount to add significantly more. As discussed above, the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim limitations (as amended 9/25/2025) may grouping of abstract idea(s) because they cover concepts performed including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion, furthermore, mere data gathering and output recited at a high level of generality, and are insignificant extract solution activity, do not provide “improvement to another technology or technical field” See MPEP 2106.05(g),
Taking the claim 21 (9/25/2025) elements separately, the functions performed in claim 21 by the generically recited “determining a discounted cumulative gain (DCG) associated with a command distance between the additional command and the command set, and wherein the command distance is based on a Jensen-Shannon (IS) divergence………..” are well-understood, routine, and conventional functions previously known to the industry. See e.g., Intellectual Ventures 1 LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838F.3d 1307,1318 (Fed. Cir. 2016) Thus these arguments are not persuasive.
Examiner applies above arguments to claims 22-26, 29-33,36-40 depend from claims 21,28,34
b)At page 8-9, claim 21, applicant argues:
The cited references do not disclose “command distance being Jensen-Shannon (JS) divergence for the additional command and the command set. As stated in the office action, Jones does not teach commands ranked based on relevant command scores, and while Bala to supply what is lacking n Jones
Bala, however, also does not disclose the use of relevant command scores to rank additional commands with respect to a command………Bala does not disclose identifying additional commands from a document cluster based language model nor ranking commands……..
Estrada also does not disclose such features; thus the combination of references does not disclose searching document …………The references do not disclose ranking commands……….
Further, amended claims, the cited references do not disclose discounted cumulative gain (DCG) associated with a command distance………Jensen-Shanon (JS) divergence.
Examiner’s response:
As best understood by the examiner, the cited reference Bala is directed to commands required to perform the task(s), commands are associated with the applications (0056, 0059), further in the displayed user interface, Bala teaches ranked order of commands with respect to score (score calculated for each command) (Bala: fig 4, 0069), also user may select additional commands in the search request thereby scores are calculated, and likely commands are displayed in ranked order (Bala: 0068)
The prior art of Estrada is directed to ranking document clusters, more specifically, value associated with the document cluster ranking system (element 170,180) particularly document cluster specify location of the documents element 119, para 0061, the prior art of Estrada teaches graphical user interface where user may specify weight and/or value that allows ranking algorithm to re-compute and/or customize preferences of specific editors or other users (Estrada: 0109-0110)
It is however, noted that prior art of Jones, Bala, Estrada do not teach “discounted cumulative gain (DCG), “Jensen-Shannon (JS) divergence”, although Bala teaches ranked and calculating scores (Bala: 0066-0067, 0071). On the other hand, De disclosed “discounted cumulative gain (DCG)” (De: 0093 – De teaches discounted cumulative gain particularly defining functions including the relevance value, rank list of documents segments), “Jensen-Shannon (JS) divergence” (De: 0079 – De teaches topic distance and distance between candidate queries using Jensen-Shannon (JS) divergence).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention document content relating to the measure, in a predetermined period i.e, distribution of segment lengths measure, query of De into users of Jones, Bala, Estrada because that would have allowed users of Jones, Bala, Estrada analyze document(s) of specific content, parse and extract topics, or concepts query[ing] to order relevance of each result (De: 0041-0042) allows to measure similarity between word frequency distribution of different segments f the document and/or text using Jensen-Shannon (JS) divergence (De: 0078-0079), while evaluating query results of specific document and/or text segment variation using discounted cumulative gain (De: 0092-0094),, there by improves overall quality and reliability of the system. The exemplary rationales that may support prima facie conclusion of obviousness includes (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention- -KSR, 550 US at 398.
Examiner applies above arguments to claims 22-27 depend from claim 21, similarly claims 29-33 depend from claim 28
At page 11-12, claim 34, applicant argues:
Similar to the claims 21,28 discussed above, claim 34, Jones does not disclose such features and Estrada is allegedly directed to a cluster ranking system. The combination of Jones, De Francisci and Estrada does not disclose claim 34 (as amended)
Examiner’s response:
As discussed above claim 21,28, examiner noted that prior art of Jones does not teach command score “, “determining a discount cumulative gain (DCG), “commands distance”, ” Jensen-Shannon (IS) divergence for the additional command and the command set”,. While, The prior art of De teaches “command score “ (0043,0093,0096,0100, table 2 – De teaches query system that retrieving a set of top-k relevant items from a collection items for example documents, further De evaluates measure based normalized discounted cumulative gain with respect to relevance value for any documents, as such keywords and entities are used in the documents searching, analyzing providing MAP or mean average precision scores as detailed in table 2). De teaches “determining a discount cumulative gain (DCG) (De: 0093 – De teaches discount cumulative gain is used in graded relevance score associated with relevance value(s) is identical to instant specification 0007,0074-0075); De teaches “commands distance, Jensen-Shannon (IS) divergence for the additional command and the command set” (De: 0079-0080 – De teaches topic segment , detecting the topic within the stream using topic change detection scheme as function implemented in natural language processing to machine learning particularly using Jensen-Shannon Divergence strategies measure the distance as detailed is identical to instant specification 0007
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention search query responses related to the topic, from the documents measures and receiving the content of De et al., into natural language qualifying keywords in query string associated with meanings or forms of keywords categories of Jones et al., because both Jones, De teaches natural language query commands such as keywords and/or phrases (Jones: fig 1-2, Abstract, 0046; De: 0044, 0048, 0077) and both Jones, De supports search query (Jones: fig 1, 0031; De: Abstract). Because both Jones, De teaches natural language based search query commands, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art to substitute and/or modify one method for the other particularly search with categories or keywords of particular subject matter , while De system may add and/or update the keyword information extracted from various topics and/or documents applying Jensen-Shannon Divergence distance measurement strategies with respect to candidate query (De 0079), thereby topic distance, relevant command distance may be computed between the results sets of the queries, thus improves overall quality and reliability of the system. The exemplary rationales that may support prima facie conclusion of obviousness includes (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention- -KSR, 550 US at 398.
Examiner applies above arguments to claims 36-40 depend from claim 34
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 21-34,36-40 of US Application No. 17/385,643 (as filed on 9/25/2025) are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-21 of U.S. Patent No. 11,074,280. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patented claims perform the same steps as the claims in the instant application
Instant US application: 17/385,643
US Patent No. 11,074,280
Claim 21,28,34, A non-transitory computer storage medium storing computer- usable instructions that, when used by at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform operations, comprising:
obtaining a command set associated with an action, each command of the command set being recognizable by a digital assistant to execute the action;
generating a search query based on the command set;
searching a language model based on a cluster of documents utilizing the search query;
identifying a ranked set of additional commands that are each relevant to the command set based on the search of the cluster of documents of the language model,
wherein the additional commands are ranked based on relevant command scores determined for the additional commands when employing the additional commands as a search query
wherein the relevant command score is based on determining a discounted cumulative gain (DCG) associated with a command distance between the additional command and the command set, and
wherein the command distance is based on a Jensen-Shannon (IS) divergence for the additional command and the command set
generating an association between a first ranked command of the ranked set of additional commands and the action such that the digital assistant can execute the action based on the first ranked command.
providing the ranked set of additional commands, the relevant command scores, and the action to the digital assistant for execution by the digital assistant and performing the action via the digital assistant
Claim 1, 8,15, A computer-readable non-transitory storage medium having instructions stored thereon for providing action on-boarding assistance to a user, which, when executed by a processor of a computing device cause the computing device to perform actions comprising:
receiving a command group that includes one or more initial commands associated with a new action being on-boarded to a virtual assistant by the user, wherein each of the one or more initial commands includes a sequence of natural language words recognizable by the virtual assistant to execute the new action;
determining one or more additional commands that are each relevant to the one or more initial commands, wherein the one or more additional commands includes a first command with a first sequence of natural language words that are unrecognizable by the virtual assistant and are determined by employing at least one of the one or more initial commands as a search query to search a plurality of document clusters and each document included in the plurality of document clusters includes a potential command to include in the command group;
determining one or more command scores for each of the one or more additional commands based on employing the one or more initial commands as a search query;
providing the one or more additional commands to the user as ranked recommended commands to include in the command group, wherein the ranking of the recommend commands is based on the one or more command scores determined for each of the one or more additional commands; and
associating the first command with the new action such that the first sequence of natural language words are now recognizable by the virtual assistant to execute the new action.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill was made to modify and/or to omit the additional elements of claim 1-15 of U.S. Patent No. 11,074,280 to arrive at the claims 21-34,36-40 (as amended 9/25/2025) of the instant application 17/385,643 because the ordinary skilled person would have realized that the remaining element(s) would perform the same function as before and the only difference particularly claim 21 instant application 17/385,643 generating an association between a first ranked command of the ranked set of additional commands and the action such that the digital assistant can execute the action based on the first ranked command, while claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,074,280, providing the one or more additional commands to the user as ranked recommended commands to include in the command group, wherein the ranking of the recommend commands is based on the one or more command scores determined for each of the one or more additional commands, is absent of the limitation from instant application 17/385,643 claim 21, Omission and/or addition of elements and its function in combination is obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform same functions as before.
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 21-34,36-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
At Step 1:
The claim 21 is directed to a " non-transitory computer storage medium " and thus directed to a statutory category
At Step 2A, Prong One
The claim 21 recites the following limitations directed to an abstract idea:
“obtaining a command set associated with an action, each command of the command set being recognizable by a digital assistant to execute the action”, which recites a mental process as an evaluation or judgement of the obtaining a command set executing the actions. Consistent with the specification as at [0019-0022,0033-0034, fig 2B] one can mentally to access and/or obtain commands
“generating a search query based on the command set”, which recites a mental process as an search query using commands. Consistent with the specification as at [0033-0034, fig 2A], one can mentally use commands to generate search query
“searching a language model based on a cluster of documents utilizing the search query”, which recites a mental process as an search query using commands. Consistent with the specification as at [0028, 0033-0034, fig 2A], one can mentally use commands to generate search query obtain natural language commands
“identifying a ranked set of additional commands that are each relevant to the command set based on the search of the cluster of documents of the language model, wherein the additional commands are ranked based on relevant command scores determined for the additional commands when employing the additional commands as a search query, wherein the relevant command score is based on determining a discounted cumulative gain (DCG) associated with a command distance between the additional command and the command set, and
wherein the command distance is based on a Jensen-Shannon (IS) divergence for the additional command and the command set , which recites a mental process, consistent with the specification as at [0033-0034, 0042-0045, 0071-0075fig 2A],”, which recites a mental process such as additional commands using natural language). one can mentally use additional natural language source for the action(s) ; and
“generating an association between a first ranked command of the ranked set of additional commands and the action such that the digital assistant can execute the action based on the first ranked command”, which recites a mental process of commands, rank[ing] set of additional commands. Consistent with the specification as at [0051-0056, 0057-0062], one can mentally use additional natural language source for the action(s)
“providing the ranked set of additional commands, the relevant command scores, and the action to the digital assistant for execution by the digital assistant and performing the action via the digital assistant”, which recites a mental process and/or human activity of providing additional commands. Consistent with the specification as at [0051-0056, 0057-0062], one can mentally use additional natural language source for the action(s) using generic digital assistant.
At Step 2A, Prong Two:
The claim 21 recites the following additional elements:
That the non-transitory computer storage medium is "computer-implemented" and operations are performed by "one or more computer processors" which is a high-level recitation of a generic computer components and represents mere instructions to apply on a computer as in MPEP 2106.05(f), which does not provide integration into a practical application.
“obtaining a command set associated with an action, each command of the command set being recognizable by a digital assistant to execute the action”, recites insignificant extra-solution activity as retrieval of data (i.e. mere data gathering) such as “command set associated with an action” as identified in MPEP 2106.05(g) and does not provide integration into a practical application.
“generating a search query based on the command set” recites insignificant extra-solution activity as retrieval of data (i.e. mere data gathering) such as “search information” as identified in MPEP 2106.05(g) and does not provide integration into a practical application.
“searching a language model based on a cluster of documents utilizing the search query”, recites insignificant extra-solution activity as retrieval of data (i.e. mere data gathering) such as “search information” as identified in MPEP 2106.05(g) and does not provide integration into a practical application.
“identifying a ranked set of additional commands that are each relevant to the command set based on the search of the cluster of documents of the language model, wherein the additional commands are ranked based on relevant command scores determined for the additional commands when employing the additional commands as a search query, wherein the relevant command score is based on determining a discounted cumulative gain (DCG) associated with a command distance between the additional command and the command set, and
wherein the command distance is based on a Jensen-Shannon (IS) divergence for the additional command and the command set”, recites insignificant extra-solution activity as select[ing] or identify[ing] additional commands (i.e. mere data gathering) as identified in MPEP 2106.05(g) and does not provide integration into a practical application, replica of the part of the file based on at least one parameter is mere data gathering and/or manipulation
“generating an association between a first ranked command of the ranked set of additional commands and the action such that the digital assistant can execute the action based on the first ranked command”, recites insignificant extra-solution activity such as rank[ed] (i.e. mere data gathering) as identified in MPEP 2106.05(g) and does not provide integration into a practical application.
“providing the ranked set of additional commands, the relevant command scores, and the action to the digital assistant for execution by the digital assistant and performing the action via the digital assistant”, recites insignificant extra-solution activity such as rank[ed] (i.e. mere data gathering) as identified in MPEP 2106.05(g) and does not provide integration into a practical application.
At Step 2B:
The conclusions for the mere implementation using a computer are carried over and does not provide significantly more.
With respect to “obtaining a command set associated with an action, each command of the command set being recognizable by a digital assistant to execute the action”, identified as insignificant extra-solution activity above this is also WURC as court-identified see MPEP 2106.04(d)(II) iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; or v. Electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, Content Extraction and Transmission, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348, 113 USPQ2d 1354, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
With respect to “generating a search query based on the command set”, identified as insignificant extra-solution activity above this is also WURC as court-identified see MPEP 2106.04(d)(II) iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; or v. Electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, Content Extraction and Transmission, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348, 113 USPQ2d 1354, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
With respect to “searching a language model based on a cluster of document utilizing the search query”, identified as insignificant extra-solution activity above this is also WURC as court-identified see MPEP 2106.04(d)(II) iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; or v. Electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, Content Extraction and Transmission, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348, 113 USPQ2d 1354, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
With respect to “identifying a ranked set of additional commands that are each relevant to the command set based on the search of the cluster of documents of the language model, wherein the additional commands are ranked based on relevant command scores determined for the additional commands when employing the additional commands as a search query, wherein the relevant command score is based on determining a discounted cumulative gain (DCG) associated with a command distance between the additional command and the command set, and
wherein the command distance is based on a Jensen-Shannon (IS) divergence for the additional command and the command set”, identified as insignificant extra-solution activity above this is also WURC as court-identified see MPEP 2106.04(d)(II) iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; or v. Electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, Content Extraction and Transmission, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348, 113 USPQ2d 1354, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
With respect to “generating an association between a first ranked command of the ranked set of additional commands and the action such that the digital assistant can execute the action based on the first ranked command”, identified as insignificant extra-solution activity above this is also WURC as court-identified see MPEP 2106.04(d)(II) iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; or v. Electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, Content Extraction and Transmission, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348, 113 USPQ2d 1354, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
With respect to “providing the ranked set of additional commands, the relevant command scores, and the action to the digital assistant for execution by the digital assistant and performing the action via the digital assistant”, identified as insignificant extra-solution activity above this is also WURC as court-identified see MPEP 2106.04(d)(II) iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; or v. Electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, Content Extraction and Transmission, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348, 113 USPQ2d 1354, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Looking at the claim 21 as a whole does not change this conclusion and the claim is ineligible, while treated as additional elements in the claim 1 rejection above, both “obtaining a command set”, “generating a search query”, “search query”, “identifying a ranked set”, “additional command of the ranked set”, step might also performed mentally as there is no indication where the "stop criteria" is retrieved from recited in the claim.
Claims 28,34 are rejected in the analysis of claim 21, and claims 28,34 are rejected on that basis.
Claim 22. further elaborates on the “wherein the first ranked command is recognized within a speech command”, which have been determined to be extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(I). Even in combination, the additional details recited in these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 23, further elaborates on the “wherein each additional command of the ranked set of additional commands is unrecognizable by the digital assistant to execute the new action”, which have been determined to be extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(I). Even in combination, the additional details recited in these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea
Claim 24, further elaborates on the “wherein the associated command set is obtained as the action is being generated”, which have been determined to be extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(I). Even in combination, the additional details recited in these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea
Claim 25, further elaborates on the “wherein the association between the first ranked command and the action is generated based on a selection that corresponds to the first ranked command”, which have been determined to be extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(I). Even in combination, the additional details recited in these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea
Claim 26, further elaborates on the “wherein the ranked set of additional commands is provided for display via a graphical user interface (GUI) and the selection is received via the GUI.”, which have been determined to be extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(I). Even in combination, the additional details recited in these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea
Claim 27, further elaborates on the “wherein the generated association causes the first ranked command to be included in the command set”, which have been determined to be extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(I). Even in combination, the additional details recited in these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea
Claim 29, further elaborates on the “generating a search query based on the command set, the set of additional commands being determined based on a search of the language model utilizing the search query”, which have been determined to be extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(I). Even in combination, the additional details recited in these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea
Claim 30, further elaborates on the “receiving a speech command that includes the first ranked command; and
executing the action based on a recognition of the first ranked command within the speech command”, which have been determined to be extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(I). Even in combination, the additional details recited in these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea
Claim 31, further elaborates on the “wherein the association between the first ranked command and the action is generated based on a user selection that corresponds to the first ranked command”, which have been determined to be extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(I). Even in combination, the additional details recited in these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea
Claim 32, further elaborates on the “wherein the ranked set of additional commands is provided for display via a graphical user interface (GUI) and the selection is received via the GUI.”, which have been determined to be extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(I). Even in combination, the additional details recited in these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea
Claim 33, further elaborates on the “wherein the action is associated with a particular application installed on the digital assistant system”, which have been determined to be extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(I). Even in combination, the additional details recited in these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea
Claim 35 (canceled)
Claim 36, further elaborates on the “wherein the association between the first ranked command and the action is generated based on a user selection that corresponds to the first ranked command”, which have been determined to be extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(I). Even in combination, the additional details recited in these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea
Claim 37, further elaborates on the “wherein the ranked set of additional commands is provided for display to the digital assistant via a graphical user interface (GUI) and the selection is received via the GUI”, which have been determined to be extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(I). Even in combination, the additional details recited in these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea
Claim 38, further elaborates on the “receive a speech command that includes the first ranked command; and
execute the action based on a recognition of the first ranked command within the speech command”, which have been determined to be extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(I). Even in combination, the additional details recited in these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea
Claim 39, further elaborates on the “wherein the set of additional commands are retrieved from a language model based on the command set”, which have been determined to be extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(I). Even in combination, the additional details recited in these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea
Claim 40, further elaborates on the “where each command of the command set includes a corresponding series of keywords”, which have been determined to be extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(I). Even in combination, the additional details recited in these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea
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.
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 21-33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones et al., (hereafter Jones), US Pub.No. 2015/0019566 published Jan,2015 Bala, US Pub. No. 2013/0205241 published Aug, 2013 Estrada et al., (Estrada), US Pub. No. 2012/0330969 published Dec. 2012 in view of De Francisci Morales et al., (hereafter De), US Pub. No. 2014/0337308 published Nov 2014
Claims 1-20. (Cancelled)
As to claim 21, Jones teaches a system which including A non-transitory computer storage medium storing computer- usable instructions that, when used by at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform operations, comprising (Jones: page 11, claim 13 preamble directed to non-transient computer readable storage medium having computer executable instructions)
“obtaining a command set associated with an action, each command of the command set being recognizable by a digital assistant to execute the action” (Jones : 0008, 0032, 0039, 0052 fig 1 – Jones teaches multiple user devices such as handheld device mobile device connected to the source via network in supplying keywords or phrases such as dictionaries relating to specific fields for example DMOZ,Zeal, LookSmart and like as detailed in 0039 , it is further noted that Jones teaches categories of keywords and/or phrases corresponds to command set because these command set are simply natural language words is identical to the instant specification para 0020) ;
PNG
media_image1.png
211
329
media_image1.png
Greyscale
“generating a search query based on the command set” (Jones: 0046, 0051, fig 1A, fig 2 – Jones teaches generating search query based on natural language words for example “NBA Basketball” from the categorized keywords or phrases);
PNG
media_image2.png
459
254
media_image2.png
Greyscale
“searching a language model utilizing the search query” (Jones: fig 1-2, 0046, 0050-0051 – Jones teaches natural language phrases and/or words supporting search engines that return search results, further Jones fig 1 database 30 stores keywords and respective categories natural language may corresponds to instant specification 0033);
“identifying a ranked set of additional commands that are each relevant to the command set based on the search of the language model (Jones: 0035 – Jones teaches information related keywords and/or phrases associated with various categories ae identified by the system, further these keywords and/or phrases are ranked based on frequency of usage with respect to identified categories from various sources. It is further noted that Jones supports speech based system such as digital assistant or PDA, handheld devices and like fig 1, element 28 associated with the command gathering and/or speech (Jones: 0032) is identical to instant specification 0002, 0026;“wherein the additional commands are ranked based on relevant command, determined for the additional commands when employing the additional commands as a search query” (Jones: fig 10-11, 0073, 0093-0094 – Jones teaches graphical user interface supporting category window that allows users to select keyword list from the data structure, further supporting search with a guide button for example 1008, also the prior art of Jones teaches categories of keywords and/or phrases ranked for example element 1112 and displayed ie., query recognizes ranked keywords from the categories are most likely selected category for the search, digital assistant corresponds to Jone’s PDA 0008,0032. The prior art of Jones teaches keyword or phrases with augment query as additional commands may change the ranking of qualified meanings of keywords as detailed in 0073);
“generating an association between a first ranked command of the ranked set of additional commands and the action such that the digital assistant can execute the action based on the first ranked command” (Jones: fig 5-6, 0073, 0077-0078 – Jones teaches list of categories based on the frequency of the keywords or phrases from the list and the search query response including the sort order for example based on the frequency of keywords and percentage of use of the keywords determines ranked set of keywords and/or phrases);
“providing the ranked set of additional commands, (Jones: fig 11, element 1112, 0046, 0051 – rank categories based on the natural language keyword category tree by ranking element 1114, it is noted that additional commands based on keyword category associated with relevant keywords is identical to instant specification 0025,0054),
PNG
media_image3.png
471
306
media_image3.png
Greyscale
and the action to the digital assistant for execution by the digital assistant (Jones: fig 1, 0031 – mobile phone or handheld device such as personal digital assistant or PDA) corresponds to instant specification drawing fig 1, handheld device(s)
It is however, noted that Jones does not teach “commands are ranked based on relevant command scores”, although Jones teaches commands are ranked on relevancy (Jones: 0035,0073), further prior art of Jones supporting various digital devices such as handheld device element 22b, mobile phone element 22c such as personal digital assistant or PDA (Jones: 0032), The prior art of Jones also suggests “speech based device”(Jones: fig 1, para 0031) is identical to instant specification 0002-0002 and these commands refers to a group of natural language words, para 0046, fig 1A is identical to instant specification para 0003-0005. On the other hand, Bala disclosed “commands are ranked based on relevant command scores” (Bala: 0066-0068,0071 – Bala teaches command storage associated with multiple applications allows to search for example as detailed in fig 4, the prior art of Bala teaches search component identifies possible commands and calculates “score” indicative of possible commands associated with the search request (Bala: 0066), it is further noted that search engine is trained with probabilities of commands, calculation is performed to for scor[ing], rank[ing] of the search results displayed via graphical user interface in ranked order, given score calculated for each command as detailed in fig 4, 0067).
PNG
media_image4.png
421
260
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention search command enhancements, particularly performing search commands generating search results in ranking and scoring of Bala into natural language qualifying keywords in query string associated with meanings or forms of keywords categories of Jones et al., because both Jones, Bala teaches natural language query commands such as keywords and/or phrases (Jones: fig 1-2, Abstract, 0046; Bala: fig 4-5, 0059-0061) and both Jones, Bala supports text-to speech command devices (Jones: fig 1, 0031; Bala: 0057,0060), and both Jones, Bala are from the same field of endeavor. Because both Jones, Bala teaches search commands, search results are ranked, natural language based search query commands, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art to substitute and/or modify one method for the other particularly keywords or phrases, calculating appropriate scores for the commands, while Bala’s system arranging ranking scoring of possible commands providing multiple options in selecting, performing search query, displaying ranked order along with the calculated scores (Bala: 0067-0068), further allows component element 258 conveys additional information to the user, and not just executing command[s](Bala: 0081), thereby improves quality and reliability of the system.
It is however, noted that both Jones, Bala do not teaches “cluster of documents”, although both Jones, Bala teaches (commands, search results are ranked, natural language based search query commands (Jones: fig 1, 0031; Bala: 0057,0060). On the other hand, Estrada disclosed “cluster of documents” (Estrada: Abstract, fig 1-2, element 160, 0025-0026-Estrada teaches cluster of documents corresponds to Estrada’s fig 1, element 160).
PNG
media_image5.png
492
393
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
277
407
media_image6.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention document cluster ranking system of Estrada into users of Jones, Bala, because that would have allowed the users of Jones, Bala to use “cluster of documents” from various sources particularly from any type of language model(s) thereby compute value(s) associated with feature(s) of each document from the cluster of documents, automatically analyze, generate score(s) for each document cluster , further ranking each document accordingly , thereby provides importance of the document cluster (Estrada: 0045-0046)
It is however, noted that prior art of Jones, Bala, Estrada do not teach “discounted cumulative gain (DCG), “Jensen-Shannon (JS) divergence”, although Bala teaches ranked and calculating scores (Bala: 0066-0067, 0071). On the other hand, De disclosed “discounted cumulative gain (DCG)” (De: 0093 – De teaches discounted cumulative gain particularly defining functions including the relevance value, rank list of documents segments), “Jensen-Shannon (JS) divergence” (De: 0079 – De teaches topic distance and distance between candidate queries using Jensen-Shannon (JS) divergence).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention document content relating to the measure, in a predetermined period i.e, distribution of segment lengths measure, query of De into users of Jones, Bala, Estrada because that would have allowed users of Jones, Bala, Estrada analyze document(s) of specific content, parse and extract topics, or concepts query[ing] to order relevance of each result (De: 0041-0042) allows to measure similarity between word frequency distribution of different segments f the document and/or text using Jensen-Shannon (JS) divergence (De: 0078-0079), while evaluating query results of specific document and/or text segment variation using discounted cumulative gain (De: 0092-0094),, there by improves overall quality and reliability of the system.
As to claim 22, the combination of Jones, Bala, Estrada, De disclosed “wherein the first ranked command is recognized within a speech command” (Jones: fig 1, 0031-0032)
As to claim 23. (New) the combination of Jones, Bala, Estrada, De disclosed “wherein each additional command of the ranked set of additional commands is unrecognizable by the digital assistant to execute the new action” (Jones: 0035,0054).
As to claim 24, the combination of Jones, Bala, Estrada, De disclosed “wherein the associated command set is obtained as the action is being generated” (Jones: fig 5, 0066-0067).
As to claim 25, the combination of Jones, Bala, Estrada, De disclosed “wherein the association between the first ranked command and the action is generated based on a selection that corresponds to the first ranked command” (Jones: 0052-0053).
As to claim 26, the combination of Jones, Bala, Estrada, De disclosed “wherein the ranked set of additional commands is provided for display via a graphical user interface (GUI) and the selection is received via the GUI” (Jones: 0054-0055, fig 5-6, supports GUI element 70).
As to claim 27, the combination of Jones, Bala, Estrada, De disclosed “wherein the generated association causes the first ranked command to be included in the command set” (Jones: fig 4-5, 0064-0065).
As to claim 28, Jones, Bala teaches A computer-implemented method for updating a digital assistant system, comprising” (Jones: device fig 1, element 22; Bala: fig 3, 0055)
“receiving, by the digital assistant system, a command set associated with an action being generated, each command of the command set being recognizable by a digital assistant as speech input to execute the generated action” (Jones : 0008, 0032, 0039, 0052fig 1 – Jones teaches multiple user devices such as handheld device mobile device connected to the source via network in supplying keywords or phrases such as dictionaries relating to specific fields for example DMOZ,Zeal, LookSmart and like as detailed in 0039 , it is further noted that Jones teaches categories of keywords and/or phrases corresponds to command set because these command set are simply natural language words is identical to the instant specification para 0020, digital assistant as speech input corresponds to Jones’s fig 1, device 22 capable of having text or speech based device as detailed in 0031, line 9-10, also prior art of Kennewick teaches PDA or other portable computing devices capable of speech recognition engine, capturing the user input fig 1, element 120);
“determining, by the digital assistant system, a set of additional commands from a language model based on the command set” (Jones: fig 1-2, 0046, 0050-0051 – Jones teaches natural language phrases and/or words supporting search engines that return search results, further Jones fig 1 database 30 stores keywords and respective categories natural language may corresponds to instant specification 0033, it is noted that Jones specifically teaches phrases and respective categories for example as detailed in fig 4) ;
“ranking, by the digital assistant system, the set of additional commands based on relevant command , determined when employing the additional commands as a search query, wherein each additional command of the ranked set of additional commands by the digital assistant;” (Jones: fig 10-11, 0093-0094 – Jones teaches graphical user interface supporting category window that allows users to select keyword list from the data structure, further supporting search with a guide button for example 1008, also the prior art of Jones teaches categories of keywords and/or phrases ranked for example element 1112 and displayed ie., query recognizes ranked keywords from the categories are most likely selected category for the search, digital assistant corresponds to Jones’s PDA 0008,0032) and
“generating, by the digital assistant system, an association between a first ranked command of the ranked set of additional commands and the action such that the digital assistant can recognize the first ranked command to execute the generated action” (Jones: fig 5-6, 0077-0078 – Jones teaches list of categories based on the frequency of the keywords or phrases from the list and the search query response including the sort order for example based on the frequency of keywords and percentage of use of the keywords determines ranked set of keywords and/or phrases, digital assistant corresponds to Jones’s PDA 0008,0032).
“providing the ranked set of additional commands, (Jones: fig 11, element 1112, 0046, 0051 – rank categories based on the natural language keyword category tree by ranking element 1114, it is noted that additional commands based on keyword category associated with relevant keywords is identical to instant specification 0025,0054), and the action of the digital assistant for execution by the digital assistant (Jones: fig 1, 0031 – mobile phone or handheld device such as personal digital assistant or PDA) corresponds to instant specification drawing fig 1, handheld device(s)
It is however, noted that Jones does not teach “commands are ranked based on relevant command scores”, although Jones teaches commands are ranked on relevancy (Jones: 0035,0073), further prior art of Jones supporting various digital devices such as handheld device element 22b, mobile phone element 22c such as personal digital assistant or PDA (Jones: 0032), The prior art of Jones also suggests “speech based device”(Jones: fig 1, para 0031) is identical to instant specification 0002-0002 and these commands refers to a group of natural language words, para 0046, fig 1A is identical to instant specification para 0003-0005. On the other hand, Bala disclosed “commands are ranked based on relevant command scores” (Bala: 0066-0068,0071 – Bala teaches command storage associated with multiple applications allows to search for example as detailed in fig 4, the prior art of Bala teaches search component identifies possible commands and calculates “score” indicative of possible commands associated with the search request (Bala: 0066), it is further noted that search engine is trained with probabilities of commands, calculation is performed to for scor[ing], rank[ing] of the search results displayed via graphical user interface in ranked order, given score calculated for each command as detailed in fig 4, 0067).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention search command enhancements, particularly performing search commands generating search results in ranking and scoring of Bala into natural language qualifying keywords in query string associated with meanings or forms of keywords categories of Jones et al., because both Jones, Bala teaches natural language query commands such as keywords and/or phrases (Jones: fig 1-2, Abstract, 0046; Bala: fig 4-5, 0059-0061) and both Jones, Bala supports text-to speech command devices (Jones: fig 1, 0031; Bala: 0057,0060), and both Jones, Bala are from the same field of endeavor. Because both Jones, Bala teaches search commands, search results are ranked, natural language based search query commands, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art to substitute and/or modify one method for the other particularly keywords or phrases, calculating appropriate scores for the commands, while Bala’s system arranging ranking scoring of possible commands providing multiple options in selecting, performing search query, displaying ranked order along with the calculated scores (Bala: 0067-0068), further allows component element 258 conveys additional information to the user, and not just executing command[s](Bala: 0081), thereby improves quality and reliability of the system.
It is however, noted that both Jones, Bala do not teach “generated document clusters”, although both Jones, Bala teaches (commands, search results are ranked, natural language-based search query commands (Jones: fig 1, 0031; Bala: 0057,0060). On the other hand, Estrada disclosed “generated document clusters” (Estrada: Abstract, fig 1-2, element 160, 0025-0026-Estrada teaches document clusters corresponds to Estrada’s fig 1, element 160).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention document cluster ranking system of Estrada into users of Jones, Bala, because that would have allowed the users of Jones, Bala to use “document clusters” from various sources particularly from any type of language model(s) thereby compute value(s) associated with feature(s) of each document from the document clusters, automatically analyze, generate score(s) for each document cluster , further ranking each document accordingly , thereby provides importance of the document cluster (Estrada: 0045-0046)
It is however, noted that prior art of Jones, Bala, Estrada do not teach “discounted cumulative gain (DCG), “Jensen-Shannon (JS) divergence”, although Bala teaches ranked and calculating scores (Bala: 0066-0067, 0071). On the other hand, De disclosed “discounted cumulative gain (DCG)” (De: 0093 – De teaches discounted cumulative gain particularly defining functions including the relevance value, rank list of documents segments), “Jensen-Shannon (JS) divergence” (De: 0079 – De teaches topic distance and distance between candidate queries using Jensen-Shannon (JS) divergence).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention document content relating to the measure, in a predetermined period i.e, distribution of segment lengths measure, query of De into users of Jones, Bala, Estrada because that would have allowed users of Jones, Bala, Estrada analyze document(s) of specific content, parse and extract topics, or concepts query[ing] to order relevance of each result (De: 0041-0042) allows to measure similarity between word frequency distribution of different segments f the document and/or text using Jensen-Shannon (JS) divergence (De: 0078-0079), while evaluating query results of specific document and/or text segment variation using discounted cumulative gain (De: 0092-0094),, there by improves overall quality and reliability of the system.
As to claim 29, the combination of Jones, Bala, Estrada disclosed:
“generating a search query based on the command set, the set of additional commands being determined based on a search of the language model utilizing the search query” (Jones: fig 1-2, 0046, 0050-0051).
As to claim 30, the combination of Jones, Bala, Estrada disclosed:
“receiving a speech command that includes the first ranked command” (Jones: fig 1-2, 0035); and
“executing the action based on a recognition of the first ranked command within the speech command” (Jones: fig 1, 0046-0047).
As to claim 31, the combination of Jones, Bala, Estrada disclosed:,
“wherein the association between the first ranked command and the action is generated based on a user selection that corresponds to the first ranked command” (Jones: 0072-0073, 0094).
As to claim 32, the combination of Jones, Bala, Estrada disclosed: ”wherein the ranked set of additional commands is provided for display via a graphical user interface (GUI) and the selection is received via the GUI” (Jones: 0094-0095).
As to claim 33, the combination of Jones, Bala, Estrada disclosed “wherein the action is associated with a particular application installed on the digital assistant system” (Jones: fig 1, Abstract, 0039).
Claims 34,36-40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones et al., (hereafter Jones), US Pub.No. 2015/0019566 published Jan,2015 De Francisci Morales et al., (hereafter De), US Pub. No. 2014/0337308 published Nov, 2014, in view of Estrada et al., (Estrada), US Pub. No. 2012/0330969 published Dec. 2012
As to claim 34, Jones teaches a system which including “A computerized system, comprising:
at least one processor, and
at least one computer storage device storing computer-usable instructions that, when used by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to” (fig 1, 0031-0032):
“obtain a command set associated with an action, each command of the command set being recognizable by a digital assistant to execute the action” ” (Jones : 0008, 0032, 0039, 0052 fig 1 – Jones teaches multiple user devices such as handheld device mobile device connected to the source via network in supplying keywords or phrases such as dictionaries relating to specific fields for example DMOZ,Zeal, LookSmart and like as detailed in 0039 , it is further noted that Jones teaches categories of keywords and/or phrases corresponds to command set because these command set are simply natural language words is identical to the instant specification para 0020);
“determine, based on the command set, a set of additional commands that are ranked based on a relevant command score determined for each additional command of the set of additional commands, wherein each additional command of the ranked set of additional commands by the digital assistant to execute the action” (Jones: fig 10-11, 0093-0094 – Jones teaches graphical user interface supporting category window that allows users to select keyword list from the data structure, further supporting search with a guide button for example 1008, also the prior art of Jones teaches categories of keywords and/or phrases ranked for example element 1112 and displayed i.e., query recognizes ranked keywords from the categories are most likely selected category for the search, digital assistant corresponds to Jones’s PDA 0008,0032), corresponds to instant specification drawing fig 1, handheld device(s)
PNG
media_image3.png
471
306
media_image3.png
Greyscale
“determined for each additional command and the command set” (Jones: fig 11, element 1112, 0046, 0051 – rank categories based on the natural language keyword category tree by ranking element 1114, it is noted that additional commands based on keyword category associated with relevant keywords is identical to instant specification 0025,0054), and the action to a user of the digital assistant (Jones: fig 1, 0031 – mobile phone or handheld device such as personal digital assistant or PDA) corresponds to instant specification drawing fig 1, handheld device(s)
PNG
media_image1.png
211
329
media_image1.png
Greyscale
“generate an association between a first ranked command of the ranked set of additional commands and the action such that the digital assistant can recognize the first ranked command to execute the action, and cause the digital assistant to execute the action based on the first ranked command” (Jones: fig 5-6, 0077-0078 – Jones teaches list of categories based on the frequency of the keywords or phrases from the list and the search query response including the sort order for example based on the frequency of keywords and percentage of use of the keywords determines ranked set of keywords and/or phrases, digital assistant corresponds to Jones’s PDA 0008,0032).
PNG
media_image7.png
340
289
media_image7.png
Greyscale
It is however, noted that Jones does not teach “command score “, “determining a discount cumulative gain (DCG), “commands distance”, ” Jensen-Shannon (IS) divergence for the additional command and the command set”, although Jones teaches commands are ranked on relevancy (Jones: 0035,0073), further prior art of Jones supporting various digital devices such as handheld device element 22b, mobile phone element 22c such as personal digital assistant or PDA (Jones: 0032), The prior art of Jones also suggests “speech based device”(Jones: fig 1, para 0031) is identical to instant specification 0002-0002 and these commands refers to a group of natural language words, para 0046, fig 1A is identical to instant specification para 0003-0005.
On the other hand, De teaches “command score “ (0043,0093,0096,0100, table 2 – De teaches query system that retrieving a set of top-k relevant items from a collection items for example documents, further De evaluates measure based normalized discounted cumulative gain with respect to relevance value for any documents, as such keywords and entities are used in the documents searching, analyzing providing MAP or mean average precision scores as detailed in table 2). De teaches “determining a discount cumulative gain (DCG) (De: 0093 – De teaches discount cumulative gain is used in graded relevance score associated with relevance value(s) is identical to instant specification 0007,0074-0075); De teaches “commands distance, Jensen-Shannon (IS) divergence for the additional command and the command set” (De: 0079-0080 – De teaches topic segment , detecting the topic within the stream using topic change detection scheme as function implemented in natural language processing to machine learning particularly using Jensen-Shannon Divergence strategies measure the distance as detailed is identical to instant specification 0007
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention search query responses related to the topic, from the documents measures and receiving the content of De et al., into natural language qualifying keywords in query string associated with meanings or forms of keywords categories of Jones et al., because both Jones, De teaches natural language query commands such as keywords and/or phrases (Jones: fig 1-2, Abstract, 0046; De: 0044, 0048, 0077) and both Jones, De supports search query (Jones: fig 1, 0031; De: Abstract). Because both Jones, De teaches natural language based search query commands, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art to substitute and/or modify one method for the other particularly search with categories or keywords of particular subject matter , while De system may add and/or update the keyword information extracted from various topics and/or documents applying Jensen-Shannon Divergence distance measurement strategies with respect to candidate query (De 0079), thereby topic distance, relevant command distance may be computed between the results sets of the queries, thus improves overall quality and reliability of the system.
It is however, noted that both Jones, De teaches do not disclose “associated with one or more document clusters, and wherein the document clusters are associated with action”. On the other hand, Estrada disclosed “associated with one or more document clusters, and wherein the document clusters are associated with action” (Estrada: Abstract, fig 1-2, element 160, 0025-0026-Estrada teaches document clusters corresponds to Estrada’s fig 1, element 160).
PNG
media_image8.png
488
397
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
257
418
media_image9.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention document cluster ranking system of Estrada into users of Jones, De, because that would have allowed the users of Jones, De to use “document clusters” from various sources particularly from any type of language model(s) thereby compute value(s) associated with feature(s) of each document from the document clusters, automatically analyze, generate score(s) for each document cluster , further ranking each document accordingly , thereby provides importance of the document cluster (Estrada: 0045-0046)
claim 35 (canceled)
As to claim 36, the combination of Jones, De disclosed “wherein the association between the first ranked command and the action is generated based on a user selection that corresponds to the first ranked command (Jones: fig 5-6, 0077-0078).
As to claim 37, the combination of Jones, De disclosed “wherein the ranked set of additional commands is provided for display to the digital assistant via a graphical user interface (GUI) and the selection is received via the GUI” (Jones: fig 11, 0094-0095 - Joes teaches rank categories, display keyword as tree by ranking).
As to claim 38, the combination of Jones, De disclosed:
“receive a speech command that includes the first ranked command” (Jones: fig 1-2, 0035); and
“execute the action based on a recognition of the first ranked command within the speech command” (Jones: fig 1, 0046-0047).
As to claim 39, the combination of Jones, De disclosed “wherein the set of additional commands are retrieved from a language model based on the command set” (Jones: fig 1-2, 0046, 0050-0051).
As to claim 40, the combination of Jones, De disclosed “where each command of the command set includes a corresponding series of keywords” (Jones: fig 4, 0064-0065 – keyword categories, fig 11, 1104).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record
a. US Pub. No. 2015/0019566
b. US Pub. No. 2013/0205241
c. US Pub. No. 2014/0337308
d. US Pub. No. 2012/0330969
Examiner's Note: Examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in 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.
SEE MPEP 2141.02 [R-5] VI. PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS: A prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e., as a whole, including portions that would lead away from the claimed invention. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984) In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201,73 USPQ2d 1141, 1146 (Fed. Cir. 2004). >See also MPEP §2123.
In the case of amending the Claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
The prior art made of record, listed on form PTO-892, and not relied upon, if any, is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure
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.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Srirama Channavajjala whose telephone number is 571-272-4108. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:00 AM to 5:30 PM Eastern Time.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Gorney, Boris, can be reached on (571) 270- 5626. The fax phone numbers for the organization where the 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)
/Srirama Channavajjala/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2154
Prosecution Insights