DETAILED ACTION
This non-final rejection is responsive to the claims filed on 11 July 2025. Claims 1-6, 8-10, 12-17, and 19-23 are pending. Claims 1, 14, and 20 are independent claims.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/23/2022 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 14, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Specifically, the specification does not support “wherein performing one or more automated actions comprises (i) labelling at least a portion of the one or more items of supplemental information. The closest support that the specification provides is paragraph 0012-0013 where “In such an embodiment, generating and/or extracting the answer to the query can include implementing and/or utilizing supervision in terms of (C, Q, A) triplets, while generating and/or extracting the supplemental information extraction can be performed in an iterative unsupervised manner. Supervision, in this context, refers to learning and/or training a question answering model using labelled data.” These paragraphs disclose labels, but they do not disclose the act of labeling supplemental information
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 14, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1, 14, and 20, the phrase "optionally" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(h).
The dependent claims are rejected for at least the same reasons as claims 1, 14, and 20 since they depend on claims 1, 14, and 20.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 For All Claims
Step 1 – Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Regarding Step 1 of the Alice/Mayo framework, claims 1-13 are directed to a method (a process) and claim 20 is directed to a system (a machine), which each fall within one of the four statutory categories.
Claims 14-19 recite a computer-readable storage medium and thus are directed to a computer program product comprising a computer readable storage medium (a manufacture). However, the specification does not define the type of medium which is included in the recited computer-readable storage medium. According to MPEP 2111, the examiner must give the terms or phrases their broadest interpretation definition awarded by one of ordinary skill in the art unless applicant has provided some clear definition of the claimed terms or phrases. Therefore, examiner interprets the computer readable storage medium to include any type of medium which includes carrier medium such as signals. Signals are directed to non-statutory subject matter, specifically directed to signals per se. Thus, claims 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. However, the examiner notes that the claims can be amended to fall within a statutory category, specifically by adding the limitation that the computer implementations must include non-transitory information storage. This would then fall within one of the four statutory categories of inventors.
Claim 1
Step 2A, prong 1 – Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea?
Claim 1 recites the following mental processes, that in each case under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components (e.g., “computer”, “artificial intelligence-based question answering system”):
“identifying at least one of the multiple items of context information to be used in connection with generating supplemental information for an answer to the user query by processing the user query and at least a portion of the multiple items of context information”. As drafted and under its BRI, this limitation falls under the abstract idea of a mental process. As drafted, the BRI of this limitation encompasses determining, judging, or otherwise choosing data items from a list of data items by considering or otherwise analyzing the provided query and data items.
“generating the answer to the user query using at least one artificial intelligence-based question answering system”. As drafted and under its BRI, this limitation falls under the abstract idea of a mental process. As drafted, the BRI of this limitation encompasses determining, evaluating, or judging a response to the user’s question or query which utilizes at least one artificial intelligence-based question answering system, such as by utilizing the artificial intelligence-based question answering system to generate multiple possible responses and selecting an answer from the set of multiple possible responses.
“generating one or more items of supplemental information for the generated answer by processing the at least one modified version of the user query and at least a portion of the at least one identified item of context information”. As drafted and under its BRI, this limitation falls under the abstract idea of a mental process. As drafted, the BRI of this limitation encompasses processing a version of the user query and associated context information, such as by reading and evaluating the provided information, in order to generate supplemental information relating to the generated answer. For example, this can encompass generating information which expresses a correlation between the context information and the user query which may be utilized as the supplemental information.
“generating at least one modified version of the user query based at least in part on one or more keywords derived from the generated answer and one or more keywords derived from the user query, wherein generating the at least one modified version of the user query comprises performing query expansion on the user query using at least a portion of the one or more keywords derived from the generated answer and at least a portion of the one or more keywords”. As drafted and under its BRI, this limitation falls under the abstract idea of a mental process. As drafted, the BRI of this limitation encompasses determining or evaluating modified versions of the provided user query using provided keywords, such as by inserting additional keywords or replacing a word or phrase in the user query with provided keywords.
“labelling at least a portion of the one or more items of supplemental information”. As drafted and under its BRI, this limitation falls under the abstract idea of a mental process. As drafted, the BRI of this limitation encompasses labelling or evaluating supplemental information.
Because the claim recites a limitation which can practically be implemented as mental processes, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, prong 2 – Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
In particular, the claim recites the additional element of “obtaining a user query and multiple items of context information related to the user query”, which is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data, i.e., pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
In particular, the claim recites the additional element of “and performing one or more automated actions based at least in part on the one or more items of supplemental information, wherein performing one or more automated actions comprises… (ii) training the at least one artificial intelligence-based question answering system using the at least a portion of the one or more items of labelled supplemental information and (iii) optionally one or more additional automated actions”, which is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
In particular, the claim recites the additional element of “wherein the method is carried out by at least one computing device”. Such limitation amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." (Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981)). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B – Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As discussed above, the element of “obtaining a user query and multiple items of context information related to the user query” is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data, i.e., pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
As discussed above, the element of “and performing one or more automated actions based at least in part on the one or more items of supplemental information” is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Accordingly, this additional element does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
As discussed above, the element of “wherein the method is carried out by at least one computing device” amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use as explained above, which is not significantly more than the judicial exception. (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, at Step 2B, the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 2
Step 2A, prong 1 – Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea?
The claim does not recite additional laws of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract ideas in addition to the abstract ideas set forth above.
Step 2A, prong 2 – Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
In particular, the claim recites the additional element of “wherein generating one or more items of supplemental information comprises using at least one supervised span-selection technique”. Such limitation amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, namely supplemental information generation. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." (Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981)). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional element individually or in combination does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B – Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As discussed above, the element of “wherein generating one or more items of supplemental information comprises using at least one supervised span-selection technique” amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use as explained above, which is not significantly more than the judicial exception. (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, at Step 2B, the additional element individually or in combination does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 3
Step 2A, prong 1 – Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea?
The claim does not recite additional laws of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract ideas in addition to the abstract ideas set forth above.
Step 2A, prong 2 – Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
In particular, the claim recites the additional element of “wherein using at least one supervised span-selection technique comprises outputting at least one starting offset and at least one ending offset for the generated answer”. Such limitation amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." (Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981)). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. The examiner notes that, as written, this claim is directed to requiring the supervised technique includes outputting specific data, not to the outputting of the data itself. The outputting of data amounts to extra solution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim, amounting to mere data output (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Utilizing a specific technique (supervised span-selection) to determine offsets, which is recited at a high-level of generality, amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional element individually or in combination does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B – Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As discussed above, the element of “wherein using at least one supervised span-selection technique comprises outputting at least one starting offset and at least one ending offset for the generated answer” amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use as explained above, which is not significantly more than the judicial exception. (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, at Step 2B, the additional element individually or in combination does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 4
Step 2A, prong 1 – Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea?
The claim does not recite additional laws of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract ideas in addition to the abstract ideas set forth above.
Step 2A, prong 2 – Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
In particular, the claim recites the additional element of “training at least one supervised span-selection technique using at least a portion of the multiple items of context information”, which is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Further, such limitation amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." (Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981)). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. The examiner notes that, as written, this claim is directed to requiring that the recited training utilize specific data, not to the training itself or the use of the specific data.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional element individually or in combination does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B – Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As discussed above, the element of “training at least one supervised span-selection technique using at least a portion of the multiple items of context information” is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Accordingly, this additional element does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Additionally, as noted above, this limitation amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use as explained above, which is not significantly more than the judicial exception. (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, at Step 2B, the additional element individually or in combination does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 5
Step 2A, prong 1 – Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea?
The claim does not recite additional laws of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract ideas in addition to the abstract ideas set forth above.
Step 2A, prong 2 – Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
In particular, the claim recites the additional element of “wherein generating one or more items of supplemental information comprises using at least one iterative unsupervised extraction technique”, which is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional element individually or in combination does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B – Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As discussed above, the element of “wherein generating one or more items of supplemental information comprises using at least one iterative unsupervised extraction technique” is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Accordingly, this additional element does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, at Step 2B, the additional element individually or in combination does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 6
Step 2A, prong 1 – Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea?
The claim does not recite additional laws of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract ideas in addition to the abstract ideas set forth above.
Step 2A, prong 2 – Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
In particular, the claim recites the additional element of “wherein using the at least one iterative unsupervised extraction technique comprises targeting missing information across multiple iterations of implementation of the at least one iterative unsupervised extraction technique”, which is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional element individually or in combination does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B – Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As discussed above, the element of “wherein using the at least one iterative unsupervised extraction technique comprises targeting missing information across multiple iterations of implementation of the at least one iterative unsupervised extraction technique” is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Accordingly, this additional element does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, at Step 2B, the additional element individually or in combination does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 8
Step 2A, prong 1 – Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea?
The claim does not recite additional laws of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract ideas in addition to the abstract ideas set forth above.
Step 2A, prong 2 – Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
In particular, the claim recites the additional element of “wherein performing one or more automated actions comprises outputting, to at least one user associated with the user query, the generated answer and the one or more items of supplemental information”, which amounts to extra solution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim, amounting to mere data output (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional element individually or in combination does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B – Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As discussed above, the element of “wherein performing one or more automated actions comprises outputting, to at least one user associated with the user query, the generated answer and the one or more items of supplemental information” amounts to extra solution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim, amounting to mere data output (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The courts have similarly found limitations directed to displaying a result, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), "presenting offers and gathering statistics.", “determining an estimated outcome and setting a price”).
Accordingly, at Step 2B, the additional element individually or in combination does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 9
Step 2A, prong 1 – Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea?
The claim does not recite additional laws of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract ideas in addition to the abstract ideas set forth above.
Step 2A, prong 2 – Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
In particular, the claim recites the additional element of “wherein identifying at least one of the multiple items of context information to be used in connection with generating supplemental information for the answer comprises processing the user query and at least a portion of the multiple items of context information using one or more probability-based algorithms”. Such limitation amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, namely context identification utilizing a specific sequence of steps. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." (Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981)). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional element individually or in combination does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B – Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As discussed above, the element of “wherein identifying at least one of the multiple items of context information to be used in connection with generating supplemental information for the answer comprises processing the user query and at least a portion of the multiple items of context information using one or more probability-based algorithms” amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use as explained above, which is not significantly more than the judicial exception. (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, at Step 2B, the additional element individually or in combination does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 10
Step 2A, prong 1 – Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea?
The claim does not recite additional laws of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract ideas in addition to the abstract ideas set forth above.
Step 2A, prong 2 – Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
In particular, the claim recites the additional element of “wherein identifying at least one of the multiple items of context information to be used in connection with generating supplemental information for the answer further comprises using one or more ranking algorithms”. Such limitation amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, namely context identification. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." (Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981)). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional element individually or in combination does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B – Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As discussed above, the element of “wherein identifying at least one of the multiple items of context information to be used in connection with generating supplemental information for the answer further comprises using one or more ranking algorithms” amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use as explained above, which is not significantly more than the judicial exception. (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, at Step 2B, the additional element individually or in combination does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 12
Step 2A, prong 1 – Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea?
In the computing environment outlined with respect to claim 1, this claim recites in part:
“further comprising: repeating (i) generating at least one modified version of the user query and (ii) generating one or more items of supplemental information until each keyword derived from the generated answer and each keyword derived from the user query are utilized”. As drafted and under its BRI, this limitation falls under the abstract idea of a mental process. As drafted, the BRI of this limitation encompasses augmenting a question with provided supplemental context repeatedly until the keywords are exhausted, if provided the user query, supplemental information, and keywords from the generated answer and user query.
Because the claim recites a limitation which can practically be implemented as mental processes, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, prong 2 – Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
The claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B – Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
The claim does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 13
Step 2A, prong 1 – Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea?
The claim does not recite additional laws of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract ideas in addition to the abstract ideas set forth above.
Step 2A, prong 2 – Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
In particular, the claim recites the additional element of “wherein software implementing the method is provided as a service in a cloud environment”. Such limitation amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment through a recitation of generic computing components. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." (Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981)). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional element individually or in combination does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B – Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As discussed above, the element of “wherein software implementing the method is provided as a service in a cloud environment” amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use through a recitation of generic computing components as explained above, which is not significantly more than the judicial exception. (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, at Step 2B, the additional element individually or in combination does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 14
Claim 14, which recites the additional limitation outlined below, recites a computer program product that corresponds to the limitations of claim 1, and therefore is rejected under the same rationale as claim 1 for being substantially similar, mutatis mutandis.
Step 2A, prong 2 – Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
In particular, the claim recites the additional element of “A computer program product comprising a computer readable storage medium having program instructions embodied therewith, the program instructions executable by a computing device to cause the computing device to”. Such limitation amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment through a recitation of generic computing components. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." (Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981)). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional element individually or in combination does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B – Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As discussed above, the element of “A computer program product comprising a computer readable storage medium having program instructions embodied therewith, the program instructions executable by a computing device to cause the computing device to” amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use through a recitation of generic computing components as explained above, which is not significantly more than the judicial exception. (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, at Step 2B, the additional element individually or in combination does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 15
Claim 15 depends from claim 14 and recites a computer program product that corresponds to the limitations of claims 2 and 3, and therefore claim 15 is rejected under the same rationale as outlined above for claims 2, 3, and 14 for being substantially similar, mutatis mutandis.
Claim 16
Claim 16 depends from claim 14 and recites a computer program product that corresponds to the limitations of claim 5, and therefore claim 16 is rejected under the same rationale as outlined above for claims 5 and 14 for being substantially similar, mutatis mutandis.
Claim 17
Claim 17 depends from claim 16 and recites a computer program product that corresponds to the limitations of claim 6, and therefore claim 17 is rejected under the same rationale as outlined above for claims 6 and 16 for being substantially similar, mutatis mutandis.
Claim 19
Claim 19 depends from claim 14 and recites a computer program product that corresponds to the limitations of claim 8, and therefore claim 19 is rejected under the same rationale as outlined above for claims 8 and 14 for being substantially similar, mutatis mutandis.
Claim 20
Claim 20, which recites the additional limitation outlined below, recites a system that corresponds to the limitations of claim 14, and therefore is rejected under the same rationale as claim 14 for being substantially similar, mutatis mutandis.
Step 2A, prong 2 – Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
In particular, the claim recites the additional element of “A system comprising: a memory configured to store program instructions; and a processor operatively coupled to the memory to execute the program instructions to”. Such limitation amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment through a recitation of generic computing components. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." (Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981)). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional element individually or in combination does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B – Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As discussed above, the element of “A system comprising: a memory configured to store program instructions; and a processor operatively coupled to the memory to execute the program instructions to” amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use through a recitation of generic computing components as explained above, which is not significantly more than the judicial exception. (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, at Step 2B, the additional element individually or in combination does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
MCELVAIN and JAWAGAL and KUMAR
Claims 1, 5-6, 8-10, 13-14, 16-20 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2019/0340172 A1, referenced herein as MCELVAIN, in view of US 2021/0240776 A1, referenced herein as JAWAGAL.
Claim 1
MCELVAIN teaches “A computer-implemented method” ([0006], MCELVAIN: “The present application relates to systems and methods”; and [0008], MCELVAIN: “a computer-based tool”).
MCELVAIN further teaches “comprising: obtaining a user query and multiple items of context information related to the user query” ([0008], MCELVAIN: “receiving a query from a user terminal, the query including a question having a linguistic and syntactic structure”; (EN): A linguistic and syntactic structure is encompassed by the BRI of multiple items of context information related to the user query).
MCELVAIN further teaches “identifying at least one of the multiple items of context information to be used in connection with generating supplemental information for an answer to the user query by processing the user query and at least a portion of the multiple items of context information” ([0008], MCELVAIN: “receiving a query from a user terminal, the query including a question having a linguistic and syntactic structure, and analyzing the linguistic and syntactic structure of the question to determine at least a context of the question. The operations also include generating at least one search query to be executed on at least one data store, and obtaining a plurality of candidate answers in response to the execution of the search query”; and [0030], MCELVAIN: “provide analysis of the question and analysis of the candidate answers in order to facilitate identification and detection of the most correct answers. As used herein, “most correct” answers may refer to answers… that may be identified, scored, and/or ranked with respect to a probability that the answers are grammatically, contextually, and/or conversationally correct answers to questions”; (EN): Paragraph [0016] of the instant specification states “an answer, which serves as a first supplement (to the initial answer)”, but does not appear to explicitly define supplemental information for the generated answer. Thus, the context information (linguistic and syntactic structure) which is utilized in connection with generating supplemental information (the plurality of candidate answers) based on processing the query (question) and context (linguistic and syntactic structure)).
MCELVAIN further teaches “generating the answer to the user query using at least one artificial intelligence-based question answering system” ([0030], MCELVAIN: “question/answer processor 120 may be configured to provide analysis of the question and analysis of candidate answers in order to facilitate identification and detection of the most correct answers”; and [0032], MCELVAIN: “may use models (e.g. trained model(s) 210) in the linguistic structure analysis”; (EN): Trained models are encompassed by the BRI of artificial intelligence-based systems).
MCELVAIN further teaches “generating at least one modified version of the user query based at least in part on… one or more keywords derived from the user query” ([0008], MCELVAIN: “The operations also include generating at least one search query based on analyzing the linguistic and syntactic structure of the question”; (EN): Based on analyzing elements of the query (question) is encompassed by the BRI of based on one or more keywords derived from the query. MCELVAIN’s at least one search query is encompassed by the BRI of at least one modified version of the user query).
MCELVAIN further teaches “wherein generating the at least one modified version of the user query comprises performing query [[expansion]] on the user query using… at least a portion of the one or more keywords derived from the user query” ([0008], MCELVAIN: “The operations also include generating at least one search query based on analyzing the linguistic and syntactic structure of the question”; (EN): As outlined above, based on analyzing elements of the query (question) is encompassed by the BRI of based on one or more keywords derived from the query. MCELVAIN’s at least one search query is encompassed by the BRI of the resulting queries).
MCELVAIN further teaches “generating one or more items of supplemental information for the generated answer by processing the at least one modified version of the user query and at least a portion of the at least one identified item of context information” ([0008], MCELVAIN: “receiving a query from a user terminal, the query including a question having a linguistic and syntactic structure, and analyzing the linguistic and syntactic structure of the question to determine at least a context of the question. The operations also include generating at least one search query based on the analyzing the [sic] linguistic and syntactic structure of the question, causing the at least one search query to be executed on at least one data store, and obtaining a plurality of candidate answers in response to the execution of the search query”; (EN): As outlined above, MCELVAIN’s candidate answers are encompassed by the BRI of supplemental information).
MCELVAIN further teaches “and performing one or more automated actions based at least in part on the one or more items of supplemental information” ([0008], MCELVAIN: “The question is paired with each candidate answer of the plurality of candidate answers to form a plurality of question-answer pairs. The operations also include extracting at least one feature for each question-answer pair of the plurality of question-answer pairs, feeding the extracted at least one feature for each question-answer pair into a ranking model, and scoring, by the ranking model, for each feature of the at least one feature, each question-answer pair”; (EN): Paragraph [0030] of the instant specification states “performing one or more automated actions can include outputting, to at least one user associated with the user query, the generated answer and the one or more items of supplemental information”, but does not appear to explicitly define performing one or more automated actions. As such, performing the pairing, extracting features, and applying the ranking model to the extracted features to score the pairs are encompassed by the BRI of performing one or more automated actions).
MCELVAIN further teaches “wherein performing one or more automated actions comprises (i) labelling at least a portion of the one or more items of supplemental information…and (iii) optionally one or more additional automated actions”([0038], MCELVAIN: “Natural language processor 200 may perform syntactic analysis on every question, every headnote, and/or every identified candidate answer to the question”; [0032], MCELVAIN: In aspects, linguistic structure analysis may involve use of machine learning algorithms to tag parts speech, identify syntactic relations, parse dependencies, and/or label semantic roles, to provide dependency parsing, to provide noun phrase, verb phrase, and sentence detection, etc. on the questions/headnotes”; (EN) Tagging and labeling the candidate answer is encompassed under the BRI of labeling at least a portion of the one or more items of supplemental information and the optional one or more additional automated actions. By performing the analysis on a process, the actions are automated.).
MCELVAIN further teaches “wherein the method is carried out by at least one computing device” ([0008], MCELVAIN: “a computer-based tool… causes a computing device to perform operations”).
MCELVAIN teaches at least a portion of the one or more items of labelled supplemental information. MCELVAIN does not appear to explicitly disclose “generating at least one modified version of the user query based at least in part on one or more keywords derived from the generated answer” or “wherein performing one or more automated actions comprises…(ii) training the at least one artificial intelligence-based question answering system using the at least a portion of the one or more items of labelled supplemental information”.
However, in the same field, analogous art JAWAGAL provides this additional functionality by teaching “generating at least one modified version of the user query based at least in part on one or more keywords derived from the generated answer” ([0042], JAWAGAL: “the candidate answers 172 can include key phrases… The candidate answers 172 can then be employed at 408 to automatically generate the questions 174 that correspond to each of the candidate answers 172”; (EN): The key phrases included in the answers correspond to the keywords of the answers. Generating queries related to corresponding candidate answers for key phrases in a specified domain is encompassed by the BRI of generating modified versions of the user query based on one or more keywords derived from the generated answer).
JAWAGAL further teaches “wherein performing one or more automated actions comprises training the at least one artificial intelligence-based question answering system using at least a portion of the one or more items of …supplemental information” ([0020], JAWAGAL: “The candidate answers and the questions thus generated are provided to a machine comprehension model (MC) to train the MC model to identify an answer span to a given user query within a specified context”; (EN): As outlined above, the supplemental information corresponds to the candidate answers).
MCELVAIN and JAWAGAL are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, namely question-answer machine learning. MCELVAIN teaches generating at least one modified version of the user query based at least in part on… one or more keywords derived from the user query, but does not appear to explicitly disclose generating at least one modified version of the user query based at least in part on one or more keywords derived from the generated answer as taught by JAWAGAL. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have improved upon the NLP machine learning system of MCELVAIN with JAWAGAL’s generated answer keywords because “The automatic QA system disclosed herein provides a technical solution to a technical problem wherein virtual agents configured with the MC models can handle generic questions but fail to scale to different verticals or domains… Question Generation (QG) is a critical but arduous task in NLP” ([0022], JAWAGAL), as suggested by JAWAGAL.
The combination of MCELVAIN and JAWAGAL does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein generating the at least one modified version of the user query comprises performing query expansion on the user query using at least a portion of the one or more keywords derived from the generated answer and at least a portion of the one or more keywords derived from the user query”.
However, in the same field, analogous art KUMAR provides this additional functionality by teaching “further comprising: performing query expansion on the user query using at least a portion of the one or more keywords derived from the generated answer and at least a portion of the one or more keywords derived from the user query” ([0045], KUMAR: “In order to select words for the rephrased version of the query from the set of words including the first and second subsets… involving the use of an attention mechanism. An attention mechanism may capture an alignment between a part of an input sequence (such as the input query) and a corresponding part of an output sequence (such as a predicted word for the rephrased version of the query). An alignment for example represents how well these parts of the input and output sequences match each other. If particular parts of an input and output sequence are well aligned, an element of the input sequence (such as a word) may be copied to form part of the output sequence”; (EN): KUMAR teaches a setting for rephrasing a query “to increase the likelihood of obtaining a satisfactory answer to the query” ([0017], KUMAR), which is encompassed by the BRI of query expansion).
MCELVAIN and KUMAR are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, namely question-answer machine learning. The combination MACELVAIN and JAWAGAL teaches performing query [[expansion]] on the user query using… at least a portion of the one or more keywords derived from the user query, but does not appear to explicitly disclose performing query expansion on the user query using at least a portion of the one or more keywords derived from the generated answer and at least a portion of the one or more keywords derived from the user query as taught by KUMAR. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have improved upon the NLP machine learning system of the combination MACELVAIN and JAWAGAL with KUMAR’s query expansion because “The effectiveness of such systems for answering queries may be improved by rephrasing queries that these systems are unable to answer, or are unable to answer satisfactorily” ([0002], KUMAR), as suggested by KUMAR.
Claim 5
The combination of MCELVAIN and JAWAGAL and KUMAR teaches “The computer-implemented method of claim 1”, as discussed above.
JAWAGAL further teaches “wherein generating one or more items of supplemental information comprises using at least one iterative unsupervised extraction technique” ([0018], JAWAGAL: “The candidate answers can include candidate key phrases (C-KPE) extracted from the contexts using unsupervised, multi-lingual machine learning (ML) models such as Yet Another Keyword Extractor (YAKE)”; (EN): YAKE is encompassed by the BRI of iterative extraction techniques).
Claim 6
The combination of MCELVAIN and JAWAGAL and KUMAR teaches “The computer-implemented method of claim 5”, as discussed above.
JAWAGAL further teaches “wherein using the at least one iterative unsupervised extraction technique comprises targeting missing information across multiple iterations of implementation of the at least one iterative unsupervised extraction technique” ([0018], JAWAGAL: “The text extracted from the plurality of documents is tokenized into word tokens wherein each word forms a token… The extracted features are used to generate a single term score (TS) for each of the word tokens”; (EN): As discussed above, JAWAGAL teaches an iterative unsupervised extraction technique. Paragraph [0024] of the instant specification states “Also, in one or more embodiments, for every iteration, the modified query can be created in a manner such that the modified targets one or more initial user query terms that are not covered by existing supplemental information”, but does not appear to explicitly define targeting missing information. As such, generating a score for each word token is encompassed by the BRI of ensuring the terms are covered, which is encompassed by targeting missing information across multiple iterations).
Claim 8
The combination of MCELVAIN and JAWAGAL and KUMAR teaches “The computer-implemented method of claim 1”, as discussed above.
MCELVAIN further teaches “wherein performing one or more automated actions comprises outputting, to at least one user associated with the user query, the generated answer and the one or more items of supplemental information” ([0085], MCELVAIN: “Additional rules may be applied to rank the candidate answers, and dynamic thresholds may be applied to identify the best potential answers to display to the user as a response to the submitted question”; (EN): As outlined above, the candidate answers are encompassed by the BRI of supplemental information. Displaying information is encompassed by the BRI of outputting information. As such, by providing a candidate answer which comprises supplemental information, MCELVAIN teaches outputting the generated answer and the one or more items of supplemental information).
Claim 9
The combination of MCELVAIN and JAWAGAL and KUMAR teaches “The computer-implemented method of claim 1”, as discussed above.
MCELVAIN further teaches “wherein identifying at least one of the multiple items of context information to be used in connection with generating supplemental information for the answer comprises processing the user query and at least a portion of the multiple items of context information using one or more probability-based algorithms” ([0088], MCELVAIN: “Question analysis may include natural language processing, entity recognition, frame classification, key number classification, and embeddings analysis, in accordance with the functionality described above”; (EN): With reference to MCELVAIN’s claim 2, MCELVAIN specifies that analyzing the linguistic and syntactic structure of the query (or question) to determine a context is performed via methods encompassed by the BRI of probability-based algorithms, such as natural language processing and classification).
Claim 10
The combination of MCELVAIN and JAWAGAL and KUMAR teaches “The computer-implemented method of claim 9”, as discussed above.
MCELVAIN further teaches “wherein identifying at least one of the multiple items of context information to be used in connection with generating supplemental information for the answer further comprises using one or more ranking algorithms” ([0008], MCELVAIN: “The operations also include extracting at least one feature for each question-answer pair of the plurality of question-answer pairs, feeding the extracted at least one feature for each question-answer pair into a ranking model, and scoring, by the ranking model, for each feature of the at least one feature, each question-answer pair”).
Claim 13
The combination of MCELVAIN and JAWAGAL and KUMAR teaches “The computer-implemented method of claim 1”, as discussed above.
MCELVAIN further teaches “wherein software implementing the method is provided as a service in a cloud environment” ([0026], MCELVAIN: “server 110 may be implemented, wholly or in part, on an on-site system, or on a cloud-based system”).
Claim 14
Claim 14, which recites the additional limitation of "A computer program product comprising a computer readable storage medium having program instructions embodied therewith, the program instructions executable by a computing device to cause the computing device to" ([0008], MCELVAIN: “The computer-based tool may include non-transitory computer readable media having stored thereon computer code which, when executed by a processor, causes a computing device to perform operations”), is rejected under the same rationale as claim 1 for being substantially similar, mutatis mutandis.
Claim 16
Claim 16 depends from claim 14 and recites a computer program product that corresponds to the limitations of claim 5, and therefore claim 16 is rejected under the same rationale as outlined above for claims 5 and 14 for being substantially similar, mutatis mutandis.
Claim 17
Claim 17 depends from claim 16 and recites a computer program product that corresponds to the limitations of claim 6, and therefore claim 17 is rejected under the same rationale as outlined above for claims 6 and 16 for being substantially similar, mutatis mutandis.
Claim 19
Claim 19 depends from claim 14 and recites a computer program product that corresponds to the limitations of claim 8, and therefore claim 19 is rejected under the same rationale as outlined above for claims 8 and 14 for being substantially similar, mutatis mutandis.
Claim 20
Claim 20, which recites the additional limitation of "A system comprising: a memory configured to store program instructions; and a processor operatively coupled to the memory to execute the program instructions to" ([0008], MCELVAIN: “The computer-based tool may include non-transitory computer readable media having stored thereon computer code which, when executed by a processor, causes a computing device to perform operations; (EN): A computer-based tool is encompassed by the BRI of a system), is rejected under the same rationale as claim 14 for being substantially similar, mutatis mutandis.
Claim 23
Claim 23 depends from claim 20 and recites a computer program product that corresponds to the limitations of claim 5, and therefore claim 23 is rejected under the same rationale as outlined above for claims 5 and 16 for being substantially similar, mutatis mutandis.
MCELVAIN, JAWAGAL, KUMAR and KWIATKOWSKI
Claims 2-4, 15, and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of MCELVAIN and JAWAGAL and KUMAR, in view of US 2020/0265327 A1, referenced herein as KWIATKOWSKI.
Claim 2
The combination of MCELVAIN and JAWAGAL and KUMAR teaches “The computer-implemented method of claim 1”, as discussed above.
The combination of MCELVAIN and JAWAGAL and KUMAR does not appear to explicitly disclose “wherein generating one or more items of supplemental information comprises using at least one supervised span-selection technique”.
However, in the same field, analogous art KWIATKOWSKI provides this additional functionality by teaching “wherein generating one or more items of supplemental information comprises using at least one supervised span-selection technique” ([0023], KWIATKOWSKI: “The system 100 then uses a cascaded machine learning system 110… to select a text span”; and [0030]-[0031], KWIATKOWSKI: “The system 100 then selects a text span 152 from the unique text spans based on the final scores… In order to allow the cascaded machine learning system 110 to effectively score answer spans, i.e., so that the final scores generated by level 3 of the cascade can be used to accurately identify answers to input questions, the system 100 trains the machine learning models in the cascade on training data that includes labeled training examples”; (EN): Machine learning which includes labeled training examples is encompassed by the BRI of supervised techniques).
MCELVAIN and KWIATKOWSKI are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, namely question-answer machine learning. The combination MACELVAIN and JAWAGAL and KUMAR teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, but does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein generating one or more items of supplemental information comprises using at least one supervised span-selection technique as taught by KWIATKOWSKI. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have improved upon the NLP machine learning system of the combination MACELVAIN and JAWAGAL and KUMAR with KWIATKOWSKI’s supervised span-selection “in order to allow the cascaded machine learning system 110 to effectively score answer spans” ([0031], KWIATKOWSKI), as suggested by KWIATKOWSKI.
Claim 3
The combination of MCELVAIN, JAWAGAL, KUMAR, and KWIATKOWSKI teaches “The computer-implemented method of claim 2”, as discussed above.
KWIATKOWSKI further teaches “wherein using at least one supervised span-selection technique comprises outputting at least one starting offset and at least one ending offset for the generated answer” ([0038], KWIATKOWSKI: “To generate the span-context representation of the text span, the model 160 processes the concatenation of (i) the initial representation of the left context of the text span in the input document, (ii) the initial representation of the text span, and (iii) the initial representation of the right context of the text span in the input document”; (EN): The left context corresponds to the starting offset and the right context corresponds to the ending offset. The text span corresponds to the generated answer).
Claim 4
The combination of MCELVAIN, JAWAGAL, KUMAR, and KWIATKOWSKI teaches “The computer-implemented method of claim 2”, as discussed above.
KWIATKOWSKI further teaches “further comprising: training at least one supervised span-selection technique using at least a portion of the multiple items of context information” ([0031], KWIATKOWSKI: “the system 100 trains the machine learning models in the cascade on training data that includes labeled training examples. That is, each labeled training example includes a question-electronic document pair that is labeled with data identifying the correct text span, i.e., the text span from the electronic document that best answers the question”; (EN): The question corresponds to the query which comprises the context information (linguistic and syntactic structure), as outlined above).
Claim 15
Claim 15 depends from claim 14 and recites a computer program product that corresponds to the limitations of claims 2 and 3, and therefore claim 15 is rejected under the same rationale as outlined above for claims 2, 3, and 14 for being substantially similar, mutatis mutandis.
Claim 21
Claim 21 depends from claim 20 and recites a system that corresponds to the limitations of claim 2, and therefore claim 21 is rejected under the same rationale as outlined above for claims 2 and 15 for being substantially similar, mutatis mutandis.
Claim 22
Claim 22 depends from claim 21 and recites a system that corresponds to the limitations of claim 3, and therefore claim 22 is rejected under the same rationale as outlined above for claims 3 and 15 for being substantially similar, mutatis mutandis.
MCELVAIN, JAWAGAL, KUMAR and HABIBI
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of MCELVAIN and JAWAGAL and KUMAR, in view of “Keyword Extraction and Clustering for Document Recommendation in Conversations” by Maryam Habibi et al., referenced herein as HABIBI.
Claim 12
The combination of MCELVAIN and JAWAGAL and KUMAR teaches “The computer-implemented method of claim 1”, as discussed above.
MCELVAIN further teaches “(i) generating at least one modified version of the user query and (ii) generating one or more items of supplemental information” ([0008], MCELVAIN: “The operations also include generating at least one search query to be executed on at least one data store, and obtaining a plurality of candidate answers in response to the execution of the search query”; (EN): As outlined above, the search query corresponds to the modified version of the user query and the candidate answers are encompassed by the BRI of supplemental information).
MCELVAIN further teaches “keyword derived from the user query” ([0008], MCELVAIN: “The operations also include generating at least one search query based on the analyzing the linguistic and syntactic structure of the question”; (EN): As outlined above, based on analyzing elements of the query (question) is encompassed by the BRI of based on one or more keywords derived from the query).
JAWAGAL further teaches “keyword derived from the generated answer” ([0042], JAWAGAL: “the candidate answers 172 can include key phrases… The candidate answers 172 can then be employed at 408 to automatically generate the questions 174 that correspond to each of the candidate answers 172”; (EN): The key phrases used when generating queries related to corresponding candidate answers are encompassed by the BRI of keywords derived from generated answers).
The combination of MCELVAIN and JAWAGAL and KUMAR does not appear to explicitly disclose “further comprising: repeating (i) generating at least one modified version of the user query and (ii) generating one or more items of supplemental information until each keyword… are utilized”.
However, in the same field, analogous art HABIBI provides this additional functionality by teaching “further comprising: repeating (i) generating at least one modified version of the user query and (ii) generating one or more items of supplemental information until each keyword [[derived from the generated answer]] and each keyword [[derived from the user query]] are utilized” (page 751, section 3.B, paragraph 1, HABIBI: “diverse set of extracted keywords… To maintain the diversity of topics embodied in the keyword set… this set must be split into several topically-disjoint subsets. Each subset corresponds then to an implicit query that will be sent to a document retrieval system. These subsets are obtained by clustering topically-similar keywords”; (EN): Clustering the set of keywords and generating a set of queries (for document retrieval, which corresponds to generating one or more items of supplemental information) which span the clusters of keywords is encompassed by the BRI of repeatedly generating at least one modified version of the user query one or more items of supplemental information).
MCELVAIN and HABIBI are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, namely question-answer machine learning. The combination of MCELVAIN and JAWAGAL and KUMAR teaches generating at least one modified version of the user query, but does not appear to explicitly disclose repeating until each keyword are utilized as taught by HABIBI. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have improved upon the NLP machine learning system of the combination of MCELVAIN and JAWAGAL and KUMAR with HABIBI’s utilization of all of the keyword set in order “To maintain diversity of topics embodied in the keyword set, and to reduce the noisy effect of each information need [sic] on the others” (page 751, section 3.B, paragraph 1, HABIBI), as suggested by HABIBI.
Response to Arguments
The objections to the specification have been overcome in light of the instant amendments.
On pages 11-12, Applicant argues:
Further, Applicant respectfully submits that the amended limitations of "labelling at least a portion of the one or more items of supplemental information and training the at least one artificial intelligence-based question answering system using the at least a portion of the one or more items of labelled supplemental information" overcome the §101 rejection (as acknowledged by the Office Action), as such automated limitations definitively take the claims out of the mental and/or pen-and-paper realm and introduce an automated controlling function ( as, for example, the supplemental information being labelled and used to train the at least one artificial intelligence-based question answering system is generated using outputs from the at least one artificial intelligence-based question answering system).
…
As such, because neural networks are a type of artificial intelligence system, the amended independent claims which require "labelling at least a portion of the one or more items of supplemental information and training the at least one artificial intelligence-based question answering system using the at least a portion of the one or more items of labelled supplemental information" are to be properly deemed an example of claims that do not recite abstract ideas, per the above-noted MPEP rubric.
Regarding the Applicant’s argument that “labelling at least a portion of the one or more items of supplemental information and training the at least one artificial intelligence-based question answering system using the at least a portion of the one or more items of labelled supplemental information” overcomes the 101 rejection, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Specifically, Examiner notes that “labelling at least a portion of the one or more items of supplemental information” is the mental process of labelling or evaluating supplemental information. Examiner further notes that “training the at least one artificial intelligence-based question answering system…” amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
On page 13, Applicant argues:
For example, Applicant submits that the collective teachings of McElvain and Jawagal fail to teach or suggest the limitations of generating one or more items of supplemental information for the generated answer by processing the at least one modified version of the user query and at least a portion of the at least one identified item of context information, arranged as recited in the independent claims.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that the prior art of record fail to teach “generating one or more items of supplemental information for the generated answer by processing the at least one modified version of the user query and at least a portion of the at least one identified item of context information”, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Specifically MCELVAIN teaches this limitation ([0008], MCELVAIN: “receiving a query from a user terminal, the query including a question having a linguistic and syntactic structure, and analyzing the linguistic and syntactic structure of the question to determine at least a context of the question. The operations also include generating at least one search query based on the analyzing the [sic] linguistic and syntactic structure of the question, causing the at least one search query to be executed on at least one data store, and obtaining a plurality of candidate answers in response to the execution of the search query”; (EN): As outlined above, MCELVAIN’s candidate answers are encompassed by the BRI of supplemental information).
On page 14, Applicant argues:
Applicant respectfully traverses and submits that the cited portions of Kumar teaches, generally, that "a word for the rephrased version of the query may be selected from the first subset of words rather than from the second subset of words." This is distinct from the noted claim aspect because a "rephrased version" of a query does not equate to an expanded query ( as rephrased indicates substituting one word for another word, as opposed to expanding upon existing words), and further, the Kumar teaches do not disclose the specific use of keywords in any capacity, let alone explicitly using keywords derived from a generated answer keywords derived from a user query, as required by the amended independent claims.
Regarding the Applicant’s argument that the prior art does not teach query expansion, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Specifically, Examiner notes that a combination of MCELVAIN, JAWAGAL, and KUMAR teach claim 1. Examiner further notes that under BRI, query expansion includes enhancing the query in which case, KUMAR teaches this by rephrasing the query ([0045], KUMAR: “In order to select words for the rephrased version of the query from the set of words including the first and second subsets… involving the use of an attention mechanism. An attention mechanism may capture an alignment between a part of an input sequence (such as the input query) and a corresponding part of an output sequence (such as a predicted word for the rephrased version of the query). An alignment for example represents how well these parts of the input and output sequences match each other. If particular parts of an input and output sequence are well aligned, an element of the input sequence (such as a word) may be copied to form part of the output sequence”; (EN): KUMAR teaches a setting for rephrasing a query “to increase the likelihood of obtaining a satisfactory answer to the query” ([0017], KUMAR), which is encompassed by the BRI of query expansion).
On page 15, Applicant argues:
Also, with regard to the §103 rejection of claims 2-4, 11-12 and 15, Applicant notes that if an independent claim is nonobvious under § 103, then any claim depending therefrom is nonobvious. In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988). Therefore, because the cited references, as detailed above, do not teach or suggest the claimed limitations of independent claims 1 and 14, Applicant requests withdrawal of the rejection of claims 2-4, 11- 12 and 15 under §103.
Regarding the Applicant’s argument that the dependent claims are allowable at least due in part to their dependency on the independent claims, the Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes the instant rejections and response to arguments regarding the independent claims above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 11475067 B2 teaches techniques for synthetic query generation.
US 11727016 B1 teaches identification of exemplary spans from user sessions.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAITLYN R LAU whose telephone number is (571)272-1429. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday: 8:00 am - 6:00 pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michelle Bechtold can be reached on (571) 431-0762. 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.
/K.R.L./ Examiner, Art Unit 2148 /MICHELLE T BECHTOLD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2148
Prosecution Insights