DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the
first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is responsive to the application filed 06/15/2022.
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination. Claims 1, 10, and 19 are independent Claims.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Applicant’s Information Disclosure Statements filed (06/15/2022 and 10/20/2023) have been received, entered into the record, and considered.
Drawings
3. The drawings filed 06/15/2022 are accepted for examination purposes.
Specification
4. The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
5. 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.
Step1: determine whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If YES, proceed to Step 2A, broken into two prongs.
Step 2A, Prong 1: determine whether or not the claims recite a judicial exception (e.g., mathematical concepts, mental processes, certain methods of organizing human activity). If YES, the analysis proceeds to the second prong.
Step 2A, Prong 2: determine whether or not the claims integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. If NOT, the analysis proceeds to determining whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception (Step 2B).
Step 2B: If any element or combination of elements in the claim is sufficient to ensure that the claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application, or else amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Regarding Claims 1-9:
Step 1 Analysis
Claims 1-9 are directed to a method and therefore fall into one of the statutory categories.
Step 2 Analysis
Independent Claim 1 includes the following recitation of an abstract idea:
“identifying a domain of a first computer application that is operable using a first human- computer interface”; “based on the identified domain, selecting a domain model that translates between an action space of the first computer application and another space”; “based on the selected domain model, processing an action embedding to generate one or more probability distributions over actions in the action space of the first computer application, wherein the action embedding represents a plurality of actions performed previously using a second HCI of a second computer application to perform a semantic task”; and “based on the one or more probability distributions, identifying a second plurality of actions that are performable using the first computer application” (the limitations encompass a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, these limitations recite and fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas);
Independent Claim 1 recites the following additional elements, which, considered individually and as an ordered combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application:
“causing output to be presented at one or more output devices, wherein the output includes guidance for navigating the first HCI to perform the semantic task using the first computer application, and wherein the guidance is based on the identified second plurality of actions that are performable using the first computer application” (this is insignificant extra-solution activity, which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The courts have identified mere data outputting is well-understood, routine and conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d))
The element “one or more processors” is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer, and/or mere computer components, MPEP 2106.05(f).
The claimed limitations therefore do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. In this case, after considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons given above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 2, the limitation “the domain model is trained to translate between the action space of the first computer application and a domain-agnostic action embedding space” encompasses a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, the claim recites further mental process. The claim does not recite additional elements to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. In this case, after considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons given above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 3, the limitations “the domain model is trained to translate directly between the action space of the first computer application and an action space of the second computer application” encompass a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, the claim recites further mental process. The claim does not recite additional elements to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. In this case, after considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons given above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 4, the limitations “the first HCI comprises a graphical user interface” is merely the use of a computer/instructions running on the computer to carry out the judicial exception, which is neither a practical application under prong 2, nor an inventive concept under step 2B. Accordingly, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 5, the limitation “the first HCI comprises a graphical user interface” is merely the use of a computer/instructions running on the computer to carry out the judicial exception, which is neither a practical application under prong 2, nor an inventive concept under step 2B. Accordingly, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 6, the limitation “one or more of the visual annotations are rendered to call attention to one or more graphical elements of the GUI” is merely the use of a computer/instructions running on the computer to carry out the judicial exception, which is neither a practical application under prong 2, nor an inventive concept under step 2B. Accordingly, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 7, the limitation “the guidance for navigating the first HCI includes one or more natural language outputs” is merely the use of a computer/instructions running on the computer to carry out the judicial exception, which is neither a practical application under prong 2, nor an inventive concept under step 2B. Accordingly, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 8, the limitation “identifying the action embedding based on the semantic task” encompasses a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, the claim recites further mental process. The additional element “obtaining user input that conveys the semantic task” do nothing more than add insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception of merely gathering data. The courts have identified mere data gathering is well-understood, routine and conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d). After considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons given above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 9, the limitation “the user input comprises natural language input, and the method further comprises: performing natural language processing (NLP) on the natural language input to generate a first task embedding that represents the semantic task; and determining a similarity measure between the first task embedding and the action embedding; wherein the action embedding is processed based on the similarity measure” encompasses a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, the claim recites further mental process. The claim does not recite additional elements to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. In this case, After considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons given above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claims 10-18:
Step 1 Analysis
Claims 10-18 are directed to a system and therefore fall into one of the statutory categories.
Step 2 Analysis
Independent Claim 10 includes the following recitation of an abstract idea:
“identify a domain of a first computer application that is operable using a first human- computer interface”; “based on the identified domain, select a domain model that translates between an action space of the first computer application and another space”; “based on the selected domain model, process an action embedding to generate one or more probability distributions over actions in the action space of the first computer application, wherein the action embedding represents a plurality of actions performed previously using a second HCI of a second computer application to perform a semantic task”; and “based on the one or more probability distributions, identify a second plurality of actions that are performable using the first computer application” (the limitations encompass a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, these limitations recite and fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas);
Independent Claim 10 recites the following additional elements, which, considered individually and as an ordered combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application:
“cause output to be presented at one or more output devices, wherein the output includes guidance for navigating the first HCI to perform the semantic task using the first computer application, and wherein the guidance is based on the identified second plurality of actions that are performable using the first computer application” (this is insignificant extra-solution activity, which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The courts have identified mere data outputting is well-understood, routine and conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d))
The elements “a system”, “one or more processors”, and “memory storing instructions” are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer, and/or mere computer components, MPEP 2106.05(f).
The claimed limitations therefore do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. In this case, after considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons given above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claims 11-18, they correspond to claims 2-9. Therefore, they are rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding Claims 19 and 20:
Step 1 Analysis
Claims 19 and 20 are directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium and therefore fall into one of the statutory categories.
Step 2 Analysis
Independent Claim 19 includes the following recitation of an abstract idea:
“identify a domain of a first computer application that is operable using a first human- computer interface”; “based on the identified domain, select a domain model that translates between an action space of the first computer application and another space”; “based on the selected domain model, process an action embedding to generate one or more probability distributions over actions in the action space of the first computer application, wherein the action embedding represents a plurality of actions performed previously using a second HCI of a second computer application to perform a semantic task”; and “based on the one or more probability distributions, identify a second plurality of actions that are performable using the first computer application” (the limitations encompass a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, these limitations recite and fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas);
Independent Claim 19 recites the following additional elements, which, considered individually and as an ordered combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application:
“cause output to be presented at one or more output devices, wherein the output includes guidance for navigating the first HCI to perform the semantic task using the first computer application, and wherein the guidance is based on the identified second plurality of actions that are performable using the first computer application” (this is insignificant extra-solution activity, which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The courts have identified mere data outputting is well-understood, routine and conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d))
The elements “a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions” and “a processor” are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer, and/or mere computer components, MPEP 2106.05(f).
The claimed limitations therefore do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. In this case, after considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons given above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 20, it corresponds to claim 2. Therefore, it is rejected for the same reasons.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rezaeian et al. (US 20200125586) in view of Verma et al. (US 20200410392).
The references were cited by Applicant in the IDS filed 10/20/2023.
It is noted that any citations to specific, pages, columns, paragraphs, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the reference should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2123.
As to Claim 1:
Rezaeian teaches a method ([0003] and [0011]) implemented using one or more processors and comprising:
identifying a first computer application that is operable using a first human- computer interface ([0011-0012] and [0090]);
processing an action embedding to generate one or more probability distributions over actions in the action space of the first computer application, wherein the action embedding represents a plurality of actions performed previously using a second HCI of a second computer application to perform a semantic task ([0012-0013], [0068], and [0070]);
based on the one or more probability distributions, identifying a second plurality of actions that are performable using the first computer application ([0012], [0071], and [0095]); and
causing output to be presented at one or more output devices, wherein the output includes guidance for navigating the first HCI to perform the semantic task using the first computer application, and wherein the guidance is based on the identified second plurality of actions that are performable using the first computer application ([0011-0012] and [0104]).
Rezaeian, however, does not explicitly teach the following additional limitations:
Verma teaches identifying a domain of a first computer application that is operable using a first human- computer interface ([0033] and [0049-0050]); based on the identified domain, selecting a domain model that translates between an action space of the first computer application and another space ([0093-0094]); and based on the selected domain model processing an action embedding to generate one or more probability distributions over actions in the action space of the first computer application ([0091-0093]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Rezaeian with Verma because it would have provided a user of a software application (e.g., an analytics application or other software application) with guidance by predicting commands that can be executed to accomplish a given task.
As to Claim 2:
Rezaeian does not explicitly teach. Verma teaches the domain model is trained to translate between the action space of the first computer application and a domain-agnostic action embedding space ([0037] and [0044-0046]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Rezaeian with Verma because it would have provided a user of a software application (e.g., an analytics application or other software application) with guidance by predicting commands that can be executed to accomplish a given task.
.
As to Claim 3:
Rezaeian does not explicitly teach. Verma teaches the domain model is trained to translate directly between the action space of the first computer application and an action space of the second computer application ([0044-0046] and [0054-0055]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Rezaeian with Verma because it would have provided a user of a software application (e.g., an analytics application or other software application) with guidance by predicting commands that can be executed to accomplish a given task.
As to claim 4:
Rezaeian teaches the first HCI comprises a graphical user interface ([0033]).
As to Claim 5:
Rezaeian does not explicitly teach. Verma teaches the guidance for navigating the first HCI includes one or more visual annotations that overlay the GUI ([0005-0006] and [0031]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Rezaeian with Verma because it would have provided a user of a software application (e.g., an analytics application or other software application) with guidance by predicting commands that can be executed to accomplish a given task.
As to Claim 6:
Rezaeian does not explicitly teach. Verma teaches one or more of the visual annotations are rendered to call attention to one or more graphical elements of the GUI ([0036], [0038-0039] and [0057]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Rezaeian with Verma because it would have provided a user of a software application (e.g., an analytics application or other software application) with guidance by predicting commands that can be executed to accomplish a given task.
As to Claim 7:
Rezaeian does not explicitly teach. Verma teaches the guidance for navigating the first HCI includes one or more natural language outputs ([0038-0039] and [0056-0057]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Rezaeian with Verma because it would have provided a user of a software application (e.g., an analytics application or other software application) with guidance by predicting commands that can be executed to accomplish a given task.
.As to Claim 8:
Rezaeian teaches obtaining user input that conveys the semantic task; and identifying the action embedding based on the semantic task ([0070-0071]).
As to Claim 9:
Rezaeian teaches the user input comprises natural language input, and the method further comprises: performing natural language processing (NLP) on the natural language input to generate a first task embedding that represents the semantic task; and determining a similarity measure between the first task embedding and the action embedding; wherein the action embedding is processed based on the similarity measure ([0012-0013] and [0059]).
As to Claims 10-18:
Refer to the discussion of Claims 1-9 above, respectively, for rejections. Claims 10-18 are the same as Claims 1-9, except Claims 10-18 are system Claims and Claims 1-9 are method Claims.
As to Claims 19 and 20:
Refer to the discussion of Claims 1 and 2 above, respectively, for rejections. Claims 19 and 20 are the same as Claims 1 and 2, except Claims 19 and 20 are non-transitory computer-readable medium Claims and Claims 1 and 2 are method Claims.
Conclusion
7. The prior art made of record, listed on PTO 892 provided to Applicant is considered to have relevancy to the claimed invention. Applicant should review each identified reference carefully before responding to this office action to properly advance the case in light of the prior art.
Contact information
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
examiner should be directed to MAIKHANH NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571) 272-4093. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday (8:00 am – 5:30 pm). If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, TAMARA KYLE can be reached at (571)272-4241.
The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center and the Private Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center or Private PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center or Private PAIR to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center or the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/MAIKHANH NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2176